/Z^^f, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA-COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
E.  W.  HILGARD,  Director 


FEEDING  OF  FARM  ANIMALS 


BY 

M.  E.  JAFFA  and  LEROY  ANDERSON 


BULLETIN    132 


BERKELEY 

THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
June,  1901 


* 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


FEEDING    OF    FARM    ANIMALS. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  ANIMAL  NUTRITION :   COMPOSITION   AND   DIGESTIBILITY   OF   FOODS  : 

COMMENTS  ON  VARIOUS  FODDERS  AND  FEEDSTUFFS,  INCLUDING  SUGAR=BEET  PULP : 

TABLES  FOR  COMPOUNDING  RATIONS:  SUGGESTIVE  RATIONS  FOR  DIFFERENT  FARM 

ANIMALS:  USE  OF  FRUITS  FOR  STOCK. 


The  great  interest  which  is  being  taken  in  the  feeding  of  animals 
and  the  constant  demands  which  are  being  made  on  this  Station  for 
information  along  these  lines,  has  made  it  imperative  for  us  to  issue 
this  Bulletin,  setting  forth  the  general  principles  underlying  all 
animal  feeding,  together  with  such  data  and  comments  as  have  seemed 
most  essential  for  the  farmer  and  stockman.  Notwithstanding  that 
the  majority  of  the  experiment  stations  have  issued  bulletins  covering 
the  same  subject,  the  climatic  conditions  obtaining  in  California  and 
the  wide  difference  in  our  foods  from  those  of  the  older  States  render 
it  necessary  that  this  Bulletin  be  issued  to  deal  more  intelligently  with 
the  environments  peculiar  to  this  State. 

Some  of  the  matter  here  presented  concerning  the  general  principles 
of  feeding  is  reprinted  from  the  Annual  Report  for  1894-95,  the 
edition  of  which  is  exhausted.  So  far  as  possible  all  analyses  given 
are  from  our  own  laboratories,  and  represent  foods  grown  in  California. 
We  have  not  been  able,  however,  to  analyze  all  the  foods  used  in  the 
State,  and  therefore  have  copied  many  analyses  from  Professor  Henry's 
"Feeds  and  Feeding,"  in  order  to  present  the  data  in  a  more  complete 
form . 

OBJECTS    OF    FEEDING. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  young  animal  body  requires  food  to  supply 
the  material  necessary  for  its  growth.  But  beyond  this,  and  con- 
tinuing during  and  past  the  growing  stage,  there  is  a  constant  wearing 
out  and  breaking  down  of  all  the  tissues  of  the  body,  and  this  loss 
must  be  supplied  in  order  to  keep  the  animal  in  a  normal,  healthy 
condition.  Not  only  must  the  worn-out  tissues  be  replaced,  but 
the  material  used  in  producing  the  energy  necessary  for  carrying 
on  all  voluntary  and  involuntary  functions,  must  also  be  supplied. 
An  animal  which  is  working  hard  in  the  plow  is  using  up  a  great  deal 
of  fatty  tissue  as  well  as  muscle;  but  the  animal  which  is  doing 
nothing,  that  is,  making  no  voluntary  exertion,  experiences  a  loss  of 
tissue  through  the  constant  production  of  heat  necessary  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  normal  body- temperature,  and  also  for  the  per- 
formance of  all  the  involuntary  functions  of  the  body.  Hence,  we 
might  summarize  the  objects  of  feeding  as  follows: 


(a)  To  maintain  bodily  heat.  (  e)  To  perform  muscular  labor. 

(o)  To  repair  waste  of  tissue.  ffj  To  secrete  various  products. 

fcj   To  reproduce  young.  (  g)  To  lay  up  reserve  stores. 

fdj  To  form  new  tissues  or  organs. 

COMPOSITION    OF    FOODS. 

In  order  to  see  how  these  objects  may  be  best  carried  out,  we  must 
understand  the  composition  of  these  tissues  that  need  rebuilding,  and 
also  the  composition  of  the  various  foodstuffs  at  our  command. 
Viewing  them  side  by  side,  for  the  purpose  of  better  comparison,  a 
general  analysis  shows  each  to  consist  of  the  same  four  main  ingredients 
— water,  mineral  matters,  nitrogenous  and  non-nitrogenous  material. 

Water  constitutes  about  two-thirds  of  the  weight  of  the  body, 
entering  into  the  composition  of  all  its  tissues  and  fluids.  As  it  does 
not  form  nearly  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  ordinary  ration  fed  to 
stock,  we  can  readily  understand  the  necessity  of  its  forming  a 
separate  part  of  the  animal's  food. 

The  mineral  matters  comprise  about  five  per  cent,  of  the  body- 
weight,  and  have  important  functions  to  perform,  such  as  entering  into 
the  formation  of  the  teeth  and  bones,  and  regulating  the  density  of 
the  blood  and  other  fluids  of  the  body,  such  as  the  juice  of  the  stomach, 
etc.  When  estimating  food  values  the  mineral  or  inorganic  ingredients 
are  generally  omitted,  not  on  account  of  any  lack  of  importance  of 
that  portion  of  the  food,  but  for  the  reason  that  nearly  all  feedstuffs, 
no  matter  of  what  description,  contain  a  sufficient  amount  of  these 
substances,  which  are  mainly  lime,  potash,  and  phosphoric  acid,  with 
varying  amounts  of  sodium,  iron,  magnesia,  sulphuric  and  hydrochloric 
acids,  silica,  etc. 

The  nitrogenous  matters  of  the  body,  of  which  the  major  part  are 
called  proteids,  the  only  ones  that  contain  nitrogen,  are  found  mostly 
in  the  muscle,  gelatinous  part  of  the  bones  and  tendons,  brain,  nerves, 
and  internal  organs;  in  short,  all  the  working  machinery  of  the  body 
is  composed  principally  of  this  important  material.  Similarly,  in  the 
foods,  the  main  part  of  all  the  nitrogenous  material  is  termed  protein, 
signifying,  by  its  Greek  derivation,  to  take  first  place.  Another  name 
for  the  proteids  is  albuminoids.  This  important  ingredient  of  the  food 
is  found  largely  in  the  white-of -egg,  the  "myosin"  of  lean  meat,  gluten 
of  grains,  oil-cake  meals,  etc.  Besides  the  albuminoids  there  are 
other  nitrogenous  matters,  chief  among  which  is  the  class  known  as 
amides,  which  are  found  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  all  foods,  more 
particularly  in  those  of  vegetable  origin.  The  physiological  action  of 
amides  is  similar  to  that  of  fat  and  carbohydrates. 

The  albuminoids  in  the  different  food-materials  are  estimated  from 
the  nitrogen  by  multiplying  the  figure  for  the  latter  by  6.25;  nitrogen 
being  sixteen  per  cent,  of  the  albuminoids.  In  England  the  factor 
used  is  6.33. 

The  nitrogenous  compounds  of  the  food  are  generally,  for  the  above 
reasons,  reported  as  crude  protein. 

The  necessity  of  the  albuminoids,  or  protein,  in  the  daily  food  of 
an  animal  depends  not  only  upon  its  important  relation  to  such  tissues 
as  bone,  muscle,  blood,  nerves,  tendons,  etc/but  also  upon  the  fact 


that,  as  far  as  we  know,  no  albuminoids  or  protein  matter  is  formed 
in  the  body  except  by  the  transformation  of  similar  substances  pre- 
sented to  it  from  external  sources.  It  cannot  be  obtained  by  conversion 
of  any  other  material. 

The  protein  can  be  changed  into  fats,  and  thus  maj'  serve  as  a  fuel 
for  the  body,  but  fats  cannot  replace  protein.  Because  the  protein,  or 
flesh-forming  ingredients,  can  serve  as  fuel,  and  in  certain  cases  take 
the  place  of  fats  and  carbohydrates,  it  would  be  extremely  unwise  and 
uneconomical  to  use  them  for  that  purpose,  as  it  would  always  be 
done  at  a  far  greater  cost. 

The  non-nitrogenous  part  of  the  body  is  principally  fat,  the  sub- 
stance which  is  consumed  in  the  production  of  heat  and  energy.  The 
source  of  this  element  in  foodstuffs  is  comprised  in  all  those  portions 
which  are  free  from  nitrogen.  They  are  divided  into  two  main  classes 
— the  carbohydrates  and  fats — and  are  identical  with  those  found  in 
the  body,  with  the  exception  of  starch  and  sugar,  which  are  never 
found  as  such  to  any  extent  in  the  healthy  body.  The  carbo- 
hydrates are  sugar,  gums,  and  woody  fiber;  the  latter,  in  the  statement 
of  analyses  of  foods,  is  reported  separately,  while  the  remainder  of  the 
above  are,  in  order  to  conform  to  the  general  usage,  classed  together 
under  the  head  of  "nitrogen-free  extract."  The  gums  play  only  a 
secondary  part  as  regards  the  nutritive  value  of  the  food.  The 
carbohydrates  are  first  changed  into  fats,  and  then  used  as  fuel; 
though  it  must  be  remembered  that  for  the  purpose  of  heat,  fat  is 
worth  2.25  times  as  much  as  carbohydrates  (that  is,  1  pound  of  fat 
is  equivalent,  when  used  as  a  fuel,  to  2.25  pounds  of  starchy  matter) . 
When  there  is  a  deficiency  in  the  amount  of  these  elements  in  the  food, 
the  fat  of  the  body  is  drawn  npon. 

The  fat,  as  might  be  supposed,  varies  in  amount  more  than  any 
other  substance  of  the  animal  body.  The  fat  seldom  falls  below  six, 
or  rises  above  thirty  per  cent.  If  the  supply  is  cut  off,  the  surplus 
fat  stored  up  in  the  body  is  drawn  upon  to  keep  the  animal  machinery 
going,  and  if  this  continues  the  protein  is  converted  into  fat  and  used 
as  such.  Thus,  by  having  a  proper  proportion  of  fat  in  the  food  of 
the  stock,  not  only  is  the  fat  of  the  body  protected,  but  indirectly, 
also,  the  protein  of  the  muscle  and  blood,  which  is  most  important. 

The  term  fat  includes  the  butter  of  milk,  the  fat  of  meats,  oil  of 
seeds,  wax  of  plants,  etc.  It  is  determined  by  treating  the  perfectly 
dried  substance  with  ether,  the  extract  thus  resulting  being  designated 
as  "crude  fat."  As  might  be  supposed,  these  ether  extracts  have 
different  nutritive  values — the  fat  from  the  green  fodder  being  of 
less  value  than  that  from  the  meals  and  seeds.  Some  authorities,  in 
estimating  the  nutritive  effect  of  food,  give  to  all  the  crude  fats  the 
same  significance.  The  use  of  fat  is  mainly  as  a  fuel  supply  to  the 
animal  body,  although  it  may  form  fatty  tissue,  but  not  muscle. 

In  the  following  tables  are  given  the  analyses  of  the  different  foods 
which  have  been  examined  at  this  Station,  and  also  those  of  some 
others,  of  practical  interest  to  the  feeders  of  this  State,  taken  from 
Professor  Henry's  work  on  "Feeds  and  Feeding."  Credit  is  due 
Messrs.  Frank  J.  Snow  and  R.  K.  Bishop  for  assistance  in  the  chem- 
ical work  here  reported. 


TABLE  I.— Composition  of  Foods. 
Percentage  Composition. 


Feed  Stuffs. 


Green  Fodder. 

Alfalfa 

Alfileria 

Australian  saltbush 

Barley*  

Clover,  red 

Corn,  Indian* 

Corn  Kaffir* 

Cow  pea* 

Flat  pea 

Horse  bean* 

Hungarian  grass* 

Marsh  ("Briston")  grass 

Modiola  decumbens 

Oats*  

Orchard  grass* 

Peas  and  oats 

Rye* 

Sacalin,  leaves.. 

Sacalin,  stalks 

Snail  clover 

Soya  bean* 

Sorghum* 


Silage. 

Barley 

Clover 

Corn 

Oats  

Orchard  grass 


Roots,  Beet  Pulp,  etc. 

Artichokes* 

Beet,  mangels* 

Beet,  sugar 

Beet  pulp,  fresh 

Beet  pulp,  silage 

Beet  molasses    

Cabbage* 

Carrots* 

Olive  pomace 

Parsnips*  

Pie  melons 

Potatoes* 

Pumpkins* 

Sugar  beet  crowns  

Sugar  beet  leaves 

Sugar  beet  tops 

Turnips* 


Hay. 

Alfalfa 

Australian  saltbush 

Barley,  common 

Barley,  beardless   ... 

Clover,  alsike* 

Clover,  bokhara 


Water. 


80.00 
80.00 
76.51 
79.00 
70.80 
79.30 
76.13 
83.60 
63.48 
84.20 
71.10 
50.00 
80.00 
62.20 
73.00 
78.70 
76.60 
82.28 
82.09 
81.25 
75.10 
79.40 


74.00 
72.00 
75.36 

72.00 
77.00 


79.50 
90.90 
84.30 
90.00 
88.87 
25.70 
90.50 
88.60 
17.30 
88.30 
94.50 
78.90 
90.90 
81.92 
88.75 
87.14 
90.50 


10.95 
8.52 
6.44 

10.67 
9.70 
9.01 


Ash. 


1.72 
1.72 
4.75 
8.80 
2.10 
1.20 
1.75 
1.70 
3.18 
1.20 
1.70 
2.83 
2.87 
2.50 
2.00 
1.70 
1.80 
1.21 
.90 
2.07 
2.60 
1.10 


2.49 
2.60 
1.57 
2.11 

2.00 


1.00 

1.10 

.90 

.36 

.45 

8.80 

1:40 

1.00 
1.75 
.70 
.40 
1.00 
.50 
.81 
.67 
.70 
.80 


6.43 
18.56 
7.15 
5.67 
8.30 
7.04 


Starch, 

Protein. 

Fiber. 

Sugar, 
etc. 

4.94 

4.70 

7.90 

2.83 

4.72 

9.81 

3.34 

4.67 

10.28 

2.70 

7.90 

8.00 

4.40 

8.10 

13.50 

1.80 

5.00 

12.20 

3.22 

6.16 

11.96 

2.40 

4.80 

7.10 

8.18 

9.76 

13.77 

2.80 

4.90 

6.50 

3.10 

9.20 

14.20 

5.14 

12.76 

27.72 

2.72  ■ 

3.24 

10.56 

3.40 

11.20 

19.30 

2.60 

8.20 

13.30 

3.50 

6.00 

9.10 

2.60 

11.60 

"  6.80 

5.02 

2.41 

8.09    ! 

1.61 

7.17 

7.89    i 

2.85 

4.66 

8.41 

4.00 

6.70 

10.60 

1.30 

6.10 

11.60 

2.56 

8.96 

10.76    j 

4.20 

8.40 

11.60 

2.10 

6.39 

13.78 

2.20 

9.35 

13.11    i 

1.87 

9.12 

8.64   ; 

2.60 

.80 

15.90 

1.40 

.90 

5.50 

1.80 

.90 

12.00 

1.15 

2.11 

6.25 

1.50 

3.55 

5.40 

7.30 

58.20 

2.40 

1.50 

3.90 

1.10 

1.30 

7.60 

7.61 

42.67 

13.11 

1.60 

1.00 

10.20 

.77 

1.23 

2.88 

2.10 

.60 

17.30 

1.30 

1.70 

5.20 

1.91 

1.91 

13.38 

1.91 

1.42 

7.22 

1.91 

1.53 

8.68 

1.10 

1.20 

6.20 

17.60 

22.63 

39.31 

12.89 

18.03 

40.30 

11.11 

22.55 

50.37 

8.05 

21.03 

51.80 

12.80 

25.60 

40.70 

13.35 

22.14 

45.26 

Fat. 


.74 
.92 
.45 
.60 

1.10 
.50 
.78 
.40 

1.63 
.40 
.70 

1.55 
.61 

1.40 
.90 

1.00 
.60 
.99 
.34 
.76 

1.00 
.50 


1.23 
1.20 
.80 
1.23 
1.37 


.20 
.20 
.10 
.13 
.21 

.40 
.40 
17.56 
.20 
.22 
.10 
.40 
.07 
.03 
.04 
.20 


3.08 
1.74 

2.38 
2.78 
2.90 
3.20 


From  Henry:  "Feeds  and  Feeding. 


TABLE  I.— Composition  of  Foods.     (Continued. 
Percentage  Composition. 


Feed  Stuffs. 


Hay  (Continued). 

Clover,  bur 

Clover,  crimson* 

Clover,  red* 

Clover,  snail 

Clover,  white* 

Clover,  wild  yellow 

Cow  pea* 

Flat  pea 

Foxtail  (Hordeum  jubatum) 

Hungarian  grass* 

Johnson  grass* 

Mixed  cereal 

Oat 

Orchard  grass* 

Rye  grass,  perennial* 

Soya  bean* 

Vetch* 

Wheat 

Wild  hay,  oat 

Other  Dry,  Coarse  Fodder. 

Alkali  weed    

Barley  straw* 

Corn  fodder* 

Gourd  vines,  "mock  orange" 

Lima  bean  straw 

Oat  straw* 

Soya  bean  straw* 

Wheat  straw* 

Grain  and  Other  Seeds. 

Barley  (rolled) 

Broom  corn.. 

Bur  clover  seed 

Corn,  Indian* 

Corn,  Egyptian 

Corn,  Kaffir* 

Cow  pea* 

Flaxseed*   

Oats*  

Rice  

Rye* 

Soya  bean* 

Sorghum*  

Sunflower*  

Wheat,  plump  

Wheat,  shrunken  

Mill  and  By-Products. 

Brewers'  grains,  dry* 

Brewers'  grains,  wet 

Cocoanut  oil-cake  meal 

Corn  meal 

Cottonseed  meal  

Gluten  feed* 

Gluten  meal* 

*From  Henry:  "Feeds  and  Feedin 


Water. 

Ash. 

1 

Protein. 

11.25 

6.91 

10.50 

9.60 

8.60 

15.20 

15.30 

6.20 

12.30 

10.15 

9.92 

13.65 

9.70 

8.30 

15.70 

9.50 

5.39 

15.58 

10.70 

7.50 

16.60 

10.00 

7.83 

20.16 

12.00 

5.39 

7.45 

7.70 

6.00 

7.50 

10.20 

6.10 

7.20 

7.65 

5.91 

7.30 

10.09 

7.00 

7.44 

9.90 

6.00 

8.10 

14.00 

7.90 

10.10 

11.30 

7.20 

15.40 

H.30 

7.90 

17.00 

8.82 

5.58 

5.96 

10.00 

5.59 

5.70 

13.40 

9.25 

12.30 

14.20 

5.70 

3.50 

42.20 

2.70 

4.50 

13.90 

12.66 

11.42 

10.00 

9.56 

10.72 

9.20 

5.10 

4.00 

10.10 

5.80 

4.60 

9.60 

4.20 

3.40 

10.05 

2.92 

12.00 

12.70 

3.00 

10.30 

6.61 

8.85 

21.45 

10.60 

1.50 

10.30 

12.63 

1.92 

9.96 

9.30 

1.50 

9.90 

14.80 

3.20 

20.80 

9.20 

4.30 

22.60 

11.00 

3.00 

11.80 

12.30 
11.60 

.30 
1.90 

8.40 
10.60 

11.80 

4.70 

34.00 

12.80 

2.10 

9.10 

8.60 

2.60 

16.30 

11.50 

1.76 

11.85 

8.30 

2.34 

17.10 

8.20 

3.60 

19.90 

75.70 
14.08 

1.00 
4.36 

5.40 
19.51 

12.05 
9.85 

7.80 
8.20 

1.54 

4.86 

1.10 

.90 

9.40 
47.25 
24.00 

29.30 

26.19 
27.20 
24.80 
22.34 
24.10 
30.28 
20.10 
24.05 
33.53 
27.70 
28.50 
24.80 
24.80 
32.40 
25.40 
22.30 
25.40 
22.48 
37.19 


17.30 
36.00 
14.30 
16.92 
21.14 
37.00 
40.40 
38.10 


2.30 
2.20 
25.08 
2.20 
1.93 
1.40 
4.10 
7.10 
9.50 


Starch, 

Sugar, 

etc. 


Fat. 


1.70 

4.80 

2.60 

29.90 

2.45 

3.48 


11.00 
3.80 
9.53 
2.00 
3.19 
5.30 
3.30 


44.92 
36.60 
38.10 
40.29 
39.30 
35.25 
42.20 
33.94 
39.79 
49.00 
45.90 
51.59 
48.22 
41.00 
40.50 
38.60 
36.10 
55.15 
39.25 


44.25 
39.00 
34.70 
43.06 
46.66 
42.40 
37.40 
43.40 


69.63 
70.40 
32.66 
70.40 
69.70 
74.90 
55.70 
23.20 
59.70 
78.60 
72.50 
28.80 
69.80 
21.40 
70.40 
66.78 


51.70 
12.50 
42.12 
71.34 
22.64 
51.20 
46.50 


2.23 
2.80 
3.30 
3.65 
2.90 
4.00 


2.45 
2.60 
2.10 
5.20 
2.30 
1.81 
2.28 


3.50 
1.50 
1.60 
2.04 
1.92 
2.30 
1.70 
1.30 


3.12 
5.00 
5.35 
5.00 
3.86 
3.00 
1.40 

33.70 

5.00 

.40 

1.70 

16.90 
3.60 

21.20 
2.03 
3.00 


5.60 
1.60 
10.40 
3.67 
12.21 
10.60 
11.80 


TABLE  I. — Composition  of  Foods.     (Continued. 
Percentage  Composition. 


Feed  Stuffs. 


Mill  and  By-Products(  Con t. 
Linseed  oil -cake  meal,  N.  P. 
Linseed  oil-cake  meal,  O.  P. 

Malt  spouts 

Mixed  feed 

Palm  nut  meal* 

Pea  meal* 

Peanut  meal* 

Rice  bran 

Rice  hulls 

Crushed  barley 

Rye  bran* 

Shorts 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  screenings  

fMiscellaneous. 

Blood  meal 

Distillery  slops* 

Dried  blood 

Meat  meal 

Poultry  food,  Pratt's 

Milk,  whole 

Milk,  colostrum 

Skim  milk,  gravity 

Skim  milk,  centrifugal 

Buttermilk 

Whey 


Water. 


10.93 
9.35 
13.35 
10.57 
10.40 
10.50 
10.70 
10.55 
11.02 
10.05 
10.60 
9.85 
11.67 
11.73 
11.67 


93.70 
8.50 
7.50 
14.63 
87.20 
74.60 
90.30 
90.60 
90.30 
93.40 


Ash. 


4.50 
5.22 
5.99 
3.57 
4.30 
2.60 
4.90 
6.64 
16.04 
2.92 
3. 
4. 
5. 
2. 
2. 


.20 


6.19 

.70 
1.60 
.70 
.70 
.70 
.50 


Protein.       Fiber 


30.70 
29.75 
19.53 
12.00 
16.80 
20.20 
47.60 
14.96 
5.36 
12.00 
14.70 
15.20 
14.05 
15.22 
10.06 


79.60 

1.90 

84.40 

42.90 

13.52 

3.60 

17.60 

3.30 

3.30 

4.00 

.80 


Starch, 

Sugar, 

etc. 


8.89 
6.23 

14.00 
9.66 

24.00 

14.40 
5.10 
4.85 

37.12 
2.30 
3.50 
5.05 
8.16 
4.88 
5.48 


.60 


5.35 


37.95 
31.20 
45.17 
59.98 
35.00 
51.10 
23.70 
50.20 
29.54 
69.63 
63.80 
64.48 
57.34 
60.85 
67.63 


2.80 


55.91 
4.90 
2.70 
5.30 
5.30 
4.50 
5.00 


Fat. 


7.03 
18.25 
1.96 
4.21 
9.50 
1.20 
8.00 
12.80 
.92 
3.12 
2.80 
3.32 
3.60 
4.47 
2.72 


.90 
2.50 

4.40 
3.70 
3.60 
.40 
.10 
.50 
.30 


DIGESTIBILITY    OF    FOODS. 

The  chemical  composition,  alone,  of  the  different  food-materials  is 
not  of  much  value  to  the  farmer  or  dairyman,  if  he  does  not  know 
how  much  of  each  nutrient  (the  name  given  to  the  nutritive  parts  of 
the  food — protein,  fat,  carbohydrates,  and  mineral  matters)  of  the 
feeding-stuff  in  question  is  digestible,  or  available  to  the  animal. 
Most  of  the  experiments  in  this  line  have  been  made  in  Germany, 
although  some  of  the  Eastern  States  are  now  carrying  on  this  kind  of 
investigation. 

In  all  foods  there  is  always  a  certain  portion  of  each  nutrient, 
whether  it  be  protein,  fat,  or  carbohydrate,  which  is  not  digested  or 
assimilated,  but  passes  through  the  body,  and  is  valuable  only  as 
manure.  In  order  to  ascertain  how  much  of  each  food  is  not  digested, 
the  material  is  weighed  and  chemically  analyzed  before  consumption, 
and  the  weight  and  composition  of  the  animal  excrement  is  also 
determined.  The  difference  of  the  two  analyses  is  taken  as  the 
quantity  digested  or  assimilated.  The  results  so  obtained  are  termed 
digestion  coefficients,  and  are  only  approximate,  but,  in  the  present 

*  From  Henry:  "  Feeds  and  Feeding." 

tThe  nutrients  of  the  foods  under  this  head  may,  for  the  purposes  of  this  Bulletin,  be  considered 
as  entirely  digestible. 


state  of  such  researches,  the  best  data  available.  For  each  food  the 
digestion  coefficient  may  vary  considerably — the  more  concentrated 
the  food,  the  higher,  as  a  rule,  will  be  the  digestion  coefficient.  For 
instance,  while  about  57  per  cent,  of  the  protein  is  digestible  in  oat 
hay,  78  is  the  coefficient  for  grain  middlings  or  bran,  and  in  some  of 
the  peas  and  beans  we  find  as  much  as  88  per  cent,  of  this  highly 
important  ingredient  to  be  digestible. 

To  illustrate  the  above  statements :  In  every  100  pounds  of  alfalfa 
hay  (average  of  three  analyses)  there  are  17.60  pounds  of  crude  pro- 
tein, 3.08  pounds  of  crude  fat,  39.31  pounds  of  nitrogen-free  extract, 
and  22.63  pounds  of  crude  fiber.  For  this  hay,  according  to  the  latest 
investigations,  it  has  been  found  that  of  the  protein  about  70  per 
cent,  is  digestible;  of  the  fat,  51  per  cent.;  of  the  crude  fiber,  46  per 
cent.;  and  about  68  per  cent,  of  the  nitrogen-free  extract  can  be 
digested.  Hence,  in  100  pounds  of  alfalfa  hay  there  would  be  12.32 
pounds  of  digestible  protein,  1.57  pounds  of  digestible  fat,  26.73 
pounds  of  digestible  nitrogen-free  extract,  or  starchy  material,  and 
and  10.40  pounds  of  digestible  fiber. 

Nutritive  Eatio. — The  different  feeding  stuffs  vary  very  much  in 
their  composition;  peas  and  beans,  and  the  concentrated  foods  in 
general,  contain  large  amounts  of  protein,  or  muscle-forming  ingre- 
dients, and  very  little  of  the  non-nitrogenous  materials;  others,  like 
the  potato,  corn,  etc.,  have  much  starchy  matter  combined  with  small 
quantities  of  albuminoids;  and,  again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  vege- 
tables as  a  whole,  we  have  small  amounts  of  both  carbohydrates,  or 
fat- producers,  and  nitrogenous,  or  muscle-formers. 

The  proportion  of  these  two  important  elements  of  the  cattle  foods 
is  termed  the  nutritive  ratio;  in  other  words,  the  latter  is  the  ratio  of 
the  digestible  protein  to  the  sum  of  all  the  remaining  nutrients  in  the 
food.  In  estimating  this  sum,  the  figure  denoting  the  amount  of  fat 
is  multiplied  by  2.25,  because  it  has  been  ascertained  by  experiment, 
as  before  stated,  that  about  2.25  times  as  much  heat  is  developed  by 
the  consumption  of  a  pound  of  fat  as  by  the  same  quantity  of  sugar 
or  starch.  This  product  is  added  to  the  weight  of  the  carbohydrates, 
and  the  sum  divided  by  the  figure  for  the  protein,  the  quotient  being 
the  nutritive  ratio. 

To  illustrate  this:  Let  us  take,  again,  alfalfa  hay,  which  contains, 
as  previously  noted,  12.32  per  cent,  of  digestible  protein,  1.57  per 
cent,  of  fat,  26.73  per  cent,  of  digestible  nitrogen-free  extract,  and 
10.40  per  cent,  of  digestible  fiber.  The  fat  percentage  (1.57),  multi- 
plied by  2.25,  amounts  to  3.53;  this  added  to  the  figure  for  the  fiber 
and  carbohydrates,  37.13,  equals  40.66,  which  -divided  by  12.32,  the 
per  cent,  of  protein,  gives  3.3.  Hence  the  nutritive  ratio  is  1:3.3;  in 
other  words,  there  is  in  alfalfa  hay  1  part  of  protein,  or  nitrogenous 
matter,  to  3.3  parts  of  non-nitrogenous,  or  starchy  material.  The 
ratio  is  "wide,"  and  termed  a  carbonaceous  one,  when  the  amount  of 
protein  to  the  remaining  ingredients  is  small.  A  "narrow,"  or  nitro- 
genous ratio,  is  one  where  the  reverse  is  the  case;  that  is,  the  amount 
of  protein  is  considerable  when  compared  with  that  of  the  carbo- 
hydrates, as  in  the  example  just  given. 

The  data  for  the  total  dry  matter  and  digestible  nutrients  in  100 
pounds  of  the  different  feedstuffs,  are  presented  in  table  II. 


TABLE  II.— Dry  Matter  and  Digestible  Nutrients  in  100  Pounds. 


Feed  Stuffs. 


Green  Fodder. 

Alfalfa 

Alfileria  

Australian  saltbush 

Barley .• 

Clover,  red 

Corn,  Indian 

Corn,  Kaffir 

Cow  pea 

Plat  pea 

Horse  bean  

Hungarian  grass  

Marsh  ("Briston")  grass 

Modiola  decumbens 

Oats  

Orchard  grass 

Peas  and  oats 

Rye 

Sacalin,  leaves 

Saealin,  stalks 

Snail  clover 

Soya  bean  ....  

Sorghum 


Dry  Matter 
in  100  lbs. 


Digestible  Nutrients  in  100  Lbs. 


Protein. 


Silage. 

Barley 

Clover  

Corn 

Oat 

Orchard  grass  


Roots,  Beet  Pulp,  etc. 

Artichokes 

Beet,  mangels 

Beet,  sugar 

Beet  pulp,  fresh 

Beet  pulp,  silage 

Beet  molasses 

Cabbage  

Carrots  

Parsnips 

Pie  melons 

Potatoes 

Pumpkins 

Sugar  beet  crowns ' 

Sugar  beet  leaves 

Sugar  beet  tops  

Turnips   


Hay. 

Alfalfa 

Australian  saltbush 

Barley,  average 

Clover,  alsike 

Clover,  bokhara 

Clover,  bur 

Clover,  crimson  


20.0 
20.0 
23.5 
21.0 
29.2 
20.7 
23.9 
16.4 
56.5 
15.8 
28.9 
50.0 
20.0 
37.8 
27.0 
16.0 
23.4 
17.7 
•17.8 
18.8 
24.9 
20.6 


26.0 
28.0 
24.6 
28.0 
23.0 


20.0 

9.1 
15.7 
10.0 
11.1 
74.3 
15.3 
11.4 
11.7 

5.5 
21.1 

9.1 
18.1 
11.3 
12.9 

9.5 


89.1 
91.5 
91.5 
90.3 
91.0 
89.9 
90.4 


3.7 
2.1 
2.5 
1.9 
2.9 
1.0 
1.7 
1.8 
6.2 
2.2 
2.0 
2.6 
1.8 
2.6 
1.5 
1.8 
2.1 
3.8 

.8 
2.0 
3.2 

.6 


1.8 
2.0 
1.3 
1.5 
1.1 


12.3 
6.5 
5.8 
8.4 
8.7 
7.3 

10.5 


Carbo- 
Hydrates. 


7.3 

8.5 

9.2 

10.2 

14.8 

11.6 

12.1 

8.7 

14.2 

7.1 

16.0 

24.4 

9.0 

18.9 

11.4 

7.1 

14.1 

6.3 

7.5 

8.2 

11.0 

12.2 


12.7 
13.6 
13.5 
14.8 
10.6 


16.8 

5.4 

11.9 


7.8 
11.2 

3.3 
16.3 

5.8 

12.7 

4.6 

6.5 

7.2 


37.1 

36.8 
43.1 
42.5 
39.4 
41.2 
34.9 


Fat. 


.6 
.7 
.3 
.4 
.7 
.4 
.6 
.2 

1.0 
.2 
.4 
.9 
.5 

1.0 
.5 
.2 
.4 
.8 
.2 
.6 
.5 
.4 


.9 

1.0 

.6 

.9 

1.0 


.4 

.2 

.2 

.2 

.1 

.3 

.07 

.03 

.05 

.20 


1.6 
1.0 
1.6 
1.5 
1.9 
1.8 
1.2 


Nutritive 
Ratio. 


2.3 
4.8 
3.9 

5.8 
5.6 


1:12.5 


8.0 
5.1 
2.4 
3.5 

8.5 


1:10.2 
1:   5.3 


8.1 
8.3 
4.2 
7.1 
2.1 


1:10.0 
1:  4.7 
1:  3.8 
1:21.8 


11.7 
7.9 
11.7 
11.0 
11.4 


1:  8.7 
1:   5.1 

1:   6.8 

1:  5.1 
1:10.4 
1:  7.3 
1:  5.4 
1:18.4 
1:   6.6 


7.5 

2.7 
3.8 

7.7 


1:   3.3 


8.1 
5.5 
5.0 
6.2 
3.6 


TABLE  II.— Dry  Matter  and  Digestible  Nutrients  in  100  Pounds.  {Continued.) 


Feed  Stuffs. 


Dry  Matter 
in  100  lbs. 


Digestible  Nutrients  in  100  Lbs. 


Protein. 


Hay  (Continued). 

Clover,  red 84.7 

Clover,  snail  89.9 

Clover,  white 90.3 

Clover,  wild  yellow 90.5 

Cow  pea 89.3 

Flat  pea  90.0 

Foxtail  ;  88.0 

Hungarian  grass '  92.3 

Johnson  grass 89.2 

Mixed  I  92.4 

Oat \  89.9 

Orchard  grass 90.1 

Rye  grass,  perennial 86.0 

Soya  bean !  88.7 

Vetch 88.7 

Wheat |  91.2 

Wild  hay  90.0 

Other  Dry,  Coarse  Fodder. 

Alkali  weed i  86.6 

Barley  straw I  85.8 

Corn  fodder ,  57.8 

Gourd  vine,  "mock  orange" 86.1 

Lima  bean  straw 90.0 

Oat  straw I  90.8 

Soyabean  straw 89.6 

Wheat  straw 90.4 

Grains  and  Other  Seeds. 

Barley  (crushed) 90.0 

Broom  corn 87.3 

Bur  clover  seed 93.4 

Corn,  Indian 89.4 

Corn,  Egyptian 87.4 

Corn,  Kaffir j  90.7 

Cow  pea 85.2 

Flaxseed   90.8 

Oats 89.0 

Rice l  87.7 

Rye  |  88.4 

Soya  bean j  89.2 

Sorghum   ' 87.2 

Sunflower   92.5 

Wheat,  plump 88.5 

Wheat,  shrunken 91.7 

Mill  and  By-Products. 

Brewers'  grains,  dry 91.8 

Brewers'  grains,  wet 24.3 

Cocoanut  oil-cake  meal 85.9 

Corn  meal  88.0 

Cottonseed  meal 90.2 

Gluten  feed 92.2 

Gluten  meal 91.8 

Linseed  oil-cake  meal,  N.P. 89.1 

Linseed  oil-cake.meal,  O.P 90.7 


6.8 

9.6 

11.5 

10.1 

10.8 

15. 

4. 

4. 

3. 

4. 

4.5 

4.9 

6.1 

10.8 

12.9 

3.6 

3.4 


5.5 
.7 
2.5 
5.1 
5.4 
1.2 
2.3 
.4 


Carbo- 
Hydrates. 


Fat, 


35.8 
39.4 
42.2 
36.6 
38.6 
36.0 
41.4 
51.7 
42.3 
47.3 
43.7 
42.3 
37.8 
38.7 
37.5 
46.1 
44.1 


38.6 
41.2 
34.6 
37.5 
38.8 
38.6 
40.0 
36.3 


Nutritivi 
Ratio. 


1.7 
1.8 
1.5 
2.4 
1.1 
2.4 

.9 
1.3 

.8 
1.7 
1.5 
1.4 
1.2 
1.5 
1.4 
1.1 
1.1 


2.2 

.6 

1.2 

1.3 

1.2 

.8 

1.1 

.4 


5.8 

4.5 

4.0 

4.1 

4.7 

2.7 

10.1 

12.1 

1:13.8 

1:11.5 


10.5 
8.3 
6.6 
3.9 
3.2 
1:13.2 
1:13.6 


1:  7.8 
1:60.8 
1:15.0 
1:  7.8 
1:  7.7 
1:33.6 
1:18.4 
1:93.0 


9.6 

63.5 

2.1 

1:   7.1 

8.1 

61.6 

3.0 

1:    8.4 

17.2 

38.7 

4.3  ■ 

1:   2.8 

7.8 

66.7 

4.3 

1:   9.8 

8.0 

64.3 

3.0 

1:   8.9 

7.5 

70.5 

2.6 

1:10.3 

18.3 

54.2 

1.1 

1:   3.1 

20.6 

17.1 

29.0 

1:   4.0 

9.2 

47.3 

4.2 

1:   6.2 

5.3 

67.6 

.3 

1:11.8 

9.9 

67.6 

1.1 

1:   7.1 

29.6 

22.3 

14.4 

1:    2.0 

7.0 

52.1 

3.1 

1:    8.4 

12.1 

20.8 

29.0 

1:    7.1 

9.5 

49.9 

1.4 

1:   5.6 

13.7 

47.6 

1.4 

1:   3.7 

15.7 

36.3 

5.1 

1:   3.0 

3.9 

9.3 

1.4 

1:   3.2 

16.4 

42.4 

9.7 

1:   3.9 

6.4 

66.3 

3.4 

1:11.5 

41.1 

15.4 

11.0 

1:    1.0 

20.4 

48.3 

8.8 

1:   3.3 

25.8 

43.3 

14.0 

1:    2.9 

26.1 

38.5 

6.5 

1:   2.0 

24.4 

24.0 

16.7 

1:   2.5 

10 


TABLE  II.— Dry  Matter  and  Digestible  Nutrients  in  100  Pounds.  (Continued. 


Feed  Stuffs. 


Mill  and  By-Products  (Cont.). 

Malt  sprouts  

Mixed  feed 

Palm  nut  meal 

Pea  meal 

Peanut  meal  

Rice  bran 

Rice  hulls 

Crushed  barley  

Rye  bran 

Snorts 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  middlings 

Wheat  screenings. 


Dry  Matter 
in  100  lbs. 


Digestible  Nutrients  in  100  Lbs. 


Protein. 


Carbo- 
Hydrates. 


Fat. 


86.7 
89.4 
89.6 
89.5 
89.3 
89.5 
89.0 
90.0 
88.4 
90.2 
88.3 
88.3 
88.4 


15.6 

9.6 

16.0 

16.8 

42.9 

10.7 

2.7 

9.6 

11.5 

12.2 

11.2 

12.2 

8.1 


35.8 

47.4 

52.6 

51.8 

22.8 

41.8 

30.8 

63.5 

50.3 

47.9 

42.2 

53.4 

48.7 

2.0 
3.0 
9.0 

.7 

6.9 

10.6 

.8 
2.1 
2.0 
2.9 
2.5 
3.8 
1.8 


Nutritive 
Ratio. 


2.6 
5.6 
4.6 
3.2 
0.9 
5.9 
12.1 
7.1 
4.8 
4.5 
4.3 
5.1 
6.6 


POTENTIAL    ENERGY. 

The  measure  of  food  as  regards  its  fuel  value  is  made  in  terms  of 
"potential  energy,"  the  unit  of  which  is  the  calorie,  or  the  amount  of 
heat  necessary  to  raise  the  temperature  of  a  kilogram  of  water  1° 
Centigrade,  or  one  pound  of  water  4°  Fahrenheit.  Instead  of  this 
unit  we  may  use  a  unit  of  mechanical  energy,  the  foot- ton,  which  is 
the  force  that  would  lift  one  ton  one  foot,  one  calorie  being  equal  to 
about  1.53  foot- tons. 

Professor  Rubner  found,  in  experiments  made  in  the  physiological 
laboratory  at  Munich,  the  quantities  of  materials  which  were  equal  to 
100  of  fat  to  be  as  follows: 

As  determined  by  As  deter- 

Nutritive  Substances,  Water-Free.                               direct  experiment  mined  by 

with  Animals.  Calorimeter. 

Myosin  (proteid  of  meat)  225  213 

Lean  meat 243  235 

Starch 232  229 

Cane  sugar  234  235 

Grape  sugar 256  235 

Taking  the  ordinary  food  materials  as  they  come,  the  following 
general  estimate  has  been  made  for  the  average  amount  of  energy  in 
one  gram  of  each  of  the  classes  of  nutrients : 

Potential  Energy  in  Nutrients  of  Food. 

Calories;  Foot-Tons. 

In  one  gram  protein 4.1  6.3 

In  one  gram  fats  .:. 9.3  14.2 

In  one  gram  carbohydrates 4.1  6.3 

These  figures  mean  that  when  a  gram  of  fat  is  consumed,  be  it  fat 
of  the  food  or  body  fat,  it  will,  if  its  poteutial  energy  be  all  trans- 
formed into  heat,  yield  enough  to  warm  9.3  kilograms  of  water  1° 
Centigrade,  or,  if  it  be  transformed  into  mechanical  energy,  such  as 
the  muscles  use  to  do  their  work,  it  will  furnish  as  much  as  would 
raise  one  ton  14.2  feet,  or  14.2  tons  one  foot.  The  potential  energy 
of  the  protein  or  carbohydrates  is  less  than  one-half  that  of  the  fat. 
These  figures,  as  stated  by  Professor  Atwater,  are  not  absolutely 
accurate,  and  may  be  revised  by  future  research  in  the  subject. 


11 


COMMENTS    ON    VARIOUS    FEED-STUFFS. 


SILAGE    AND    VEGETABLES. 

One  of  the  chief  requisites  of  a  ration  for  profitable  milk-production 
is  that  it  be  succulent,  by  which  is  meant  that  a  portion  of  the  ration 
contains  a  large  percentage  of  water.  This  watery  condition,  or 
succulenev,  adds  to  the  palatability  of  the  food,  and  also  seems  to 
have  a  beneficial  physical  effect  upon  the  animal  digestion.  The  cow, 
therefore,  eats  a  larger  quantity  of  food,  digests  and  assimilates  it 
more  thoroughly,  and  consequently  gives  a  larger  flow  of  milk. 
Although  the  major  portion  of  California  does  not  have  the  long  cold 
winters  to  which  the  Eastern  States  are  subject,  and  where  it  is  an 
absolute  necessity  to  store  large  quantities  of  food,  both  succulent 
and  dry,  still  every  section  of  our  State  has  a  longer  or  shorter  period 
during  the  year  when  pastures  are  dry.  The  provident  dairyman, 
therefore,  anticipates  these  dry  months,  and  either  lays  in  a  store  of 
green  food  beforehand,  or  has  some  growing  which  he  may  cut  and 
feed  to  his  cattle. 

Roots. — Several  of  the  vegetables  are  valuable  in  supplying  succu- 
lence for  the. ration.  Among  the  root  class  the  one  in  most  common 
use  is  the  mangel  wurtzel  beet,  because  very  large  quantities  can  be 
grown  per  acre  and  because  it  is  palatable  to  all  kinds  of  live  stock. 
Carrots  are  also  used  in  some  sections,  and  they  have  the  advantage 
of  containing  a  slightly  larger  amount  of  dry  matter  than  mangels. 
Of  all  the  roots,  moreover,  none  are  more  relished  by  horses  than 
carrots.  Sugar  beets  are  not  found  profitable  to  grow  for  feeding 
stock,  because  they  yield  so  small  a  tonnage  in  comparison  to 
mangels,  and  the  greater  cost  of  growing  and  gathering  can  only  be 
undertaken  on  the  ground  of  their  greater  value  for  sugar. 
Potatoes  contain  about  twice  as  much  dry  matter  as  mangels  and 
three  times  as  much  carbonaceous  material.  They  are,  therefore,  of 
greater  food  value,  but,  like  sugar  beets,  have  too  high  a  commercial 
value  as  human  food  to  make  them  profitable  for  stock. 

Squashes. — Another  class  of  vegetables  which  are  useful  and  easily 
grown  is  that  of  the  melons  or  squashes.  A  very  familiar  example  is 
the  so-called  pie-melon,  an  analysis  of  which  is  found  in  Table  I. 
This,  like  the  ordinary  field  pumpkin,  can- be  produced  readily  in  large 
quantities  on  most  lands,  and  it  ripens  at  a  time  when  green  food  is 
likely  to  be  scarce.  All  of  these  vegetables  when  fed  to  dairy  stock  pro- 
duce an  increased  milk  yield,  which  is  more  than  commensurate  with  their 
actual  content  of  food  substance.  This  is  because  of  their  palata- 
bility, beneficial  effect  upon  digestion,  and  the  addition  of  a  wholesome 
variety  to  the  ration.  Any  of  the  vegetables  named  may  be  fed  with 
profit  to  swine  and  poultry  when  in  confinement,  and  to  sheep  especially 
during  the  nursing  period. 

Silage. — One  of  the  most  economical  means  of  preparing  succulent 
food  for  seasons  of  drought  and  for  supplementary  feeding  is  by  the  use 
of  the  silo.  It  is,  no  doubt,  generally  understood  that  the  silo,  as  at 
present  constructed,  is  a  huge  tank  having  perpendicular  walls  and 


12 

being  made  as  nearly  air-tight  as  is  convenient.  The  usual  size  for 
the  silo  is  fifteen  to  twenty  feet  in  diameter  and  thirty  feet  high.  Into 
the  silo  is  put  the  green  fodder  immediately  after  being  cut  fresh  in 
the  field.  The  most  common  crop  for  ensiling  is  Indian  corn,  which 
is,  moreover,  the  most  profitable  plant  to  grow  for  this  purpose. 
At  one  harvest  it  furnishes  a  larger  tonnage  per  acre  than  any  other 
crop.  The  stalks,  which  if  cured  dry  would  be  largely  wasted,  are 
kept  in  so  soft  a  condition  in  the  silo  as  to  be  completely  eaten  by  the 
stock.  '  Other  plants,  such  as  alfalfa,  barley,  oats,  and  orchard  grass, 
are  sometimes  ensiled,  but  we  would  not  recommend  their  general  use 
except  in  seasons'  or  localities  where  corn  may  not  at  the  time  be 
available,  or  in  case  they  might  otherwise  be  rendered  more  or  less 
useless  if  cured  dry;  as,  for  example,  the  first  cutting  of  alfalfa  with 
its  usual  mixture  of  foxtail.  Almost  any  plant  grown  on  the  ranch 
may  be  ensiled.  The  chief  question  is,  what  can  be  most  profitably 
made  the  main  crop  for  the  purpose  ?  The  proof  is  abundant  that 
Indian  corn  is  the  most  profitable.  The  sorghums  and  sweet  corn  do 
not  answer  well  for  ensiling  because  of  their  high  content  of  sugar, 
resulting  in  too  much  fermentation  in  the  silo. 

No  better  combination  of  foods  for  feeding  cows  in  the  stable  can 
be  imagined  than  alfalfa  hay  and  corn  silage,  and  possibly  a  little 
grain,  although  a  fairly  well-balanced  ration  can  be  made  up  without 
grain.  In  such  feeding  it  is  best  to  give  hay  and  silage  each  once  a 
day.  The  amount  of  silage  per  head  ranges  from  thirty-five  to  sixty 
pounds  daily,  depending  upon  the  size  and  appetite  of  the  animal  and 
upon  the  supply  of  silage.  The  cattle  will  eat  corn  silage  at  all 
seasons  of  the  year,  even  when  on  good  alfalfa  or  other  green  pasture; 
but  if  the  supply  be  limited  it  can  be  most  profitably  fed  when  pastures 
are  dry,  or  if  the  cattle  should  be  kept  off  them  because  of  heavy  rains 
or  until  the  grass  is  of  sufficient  age  and  size  to  be  of  value.  If  the 
dairymen  will  erect  silos  and  have  their  cows  calve  in  the  fall  instead 
of  spring  they  can  secure  as  large  a  flow  of  milk  during  the  season 
when  dairy  products  are  usually  high-priced  as  they  now  have  during 
the  low  prices  of  the  spring  months.  Corn  silage  may  be  fed  with 
profit  to  sheep  as  well  as  cattle,  but  not  to  other  stock.  Alfalfa  silage 
is  fed  successfully  to  all  farm  stock,  including  swine  and  poultry. 
Horses  working  hard  should  be  given  such  watery  food  in  very  small 
quantities;  while  those  at  light  work  or  doing  nothing  may  be  fed 
more,  and  will  even  make  profitable  use  of  some  corn  silage. 

Soiling. — Another  method  of  providing  succulent  food  is  to  cut  the 
fodder  green  and  feed  immediately  to  the  stock.  This  method  is 
known  as  "soiling."  Any  of  the  ordinary  fodder  plants  may  be  used 
in  this  way — the  most  common  being  any  of  the  corns,  sorghums,  oats 
and  peas,  cereal  grasses  and  the  like.  If  this  practice  is  followed  the 
same  rule  would  apply  as  in  the  case  of  silage — to  raise  the  crop  which 
will  produce  the  most  and  best  food  per  acre.  "Soiling"  presupposes 
that  the  stock  are  being  kept  in  small  pastures  or  in  corrals,  or  at 
least  have  but  little  feed  on  their  range.  It  also  calls  for  more  labor 
than  is  necessary  if  the  stock  could  harvest  their  own  food,  but  less 
land  is  required  to  maintain  the  same  number  of  cattle  than  if  they 
depended  wholly  upon  pasturage.  The  matter  then  lies  between 
soiling  on  the  one  hand  with  less  land  and  more  labor,  and  pasture  on 


13 

the  other  with  more  laud  and  less  labor.  With  plenty  of  land  avail- 
able and  labor  high,  we  do  not  expect  an  extended  adoption  of  the 
soiling  method  in  California  for  some  years  to  come.  The  more 
general  use  of  the  silo  will  also  tend  to  reduce  the  soiling  period, 
because  experience  shows  that  it  is  cheaper  to  provide  green  food  for 
the  year  by  one  filling  of  the  silo  than  by  the  daily  cutting  of  standing 
fodder. 

ALFALFA. 

The  large  amount  of  alfalfa  grown  in  the  interior  valleys  of  the 
State  and  its  great  value  as  a  stock  food  render  it  an  important 
element  in  the  development  of  the  animal  industries,  and  one  worthy 
of  careful  study  and  experimentation.  Two  factors  make  alfalfa  of 
great  use  to  the  farmer  and  stockman — one  is  the  large  yield  of  pasture 
or  hay  that  he  can  produce  during  the  year,  and  the  other  is  the  high 
content  of  protein  which  alfalfa  contains.  Alfalfa  hay  of  good 
quality  carries  so  much  of  this  important  and  usually  costly  element 
that  a  glance  at  the  tables  of  analyses  shows  that  twenty  pounds  of 
hay  contains  as  much  protein  as  is  required  in  the  balanced  ration  of 
an  ordinary  sized  milch  cow.  Table  III  also  shows  the  relative 
amount  of  digestible  protein  in  a  ton  of  material  and  the  cost  of  protein 
per  ton  of  the  various  common  feedstuffs  and  of  the  more  common  hays. 
These  comparative  figures  show  how  valuable  a  fodder  alfalfa  is. 
Almost  all  of  the  coarse  fodder  grown  upon  the  ranch  is  relatively 
rich  in  carbohydrates  and  relatively  poor  in  protein.  This  is  particu- 
larly true  of  the  cereal  hays,  straw,  corn  fodder  and  the  like.  With 
these  only  the  feeder  cannot  make  a  good  ration,  and  what  he  needs 
to  buy  is  protein.  He  usually  buys  concentrated  foods  because  of 
their  richness  in  protein,  and  also  pays  for  them  on  the  basis  of  their 
protein  content.  Were  he  able  to  raise  alfalfa  or  to  buy  it  at  a 
reasonable  price,  he  could  feed  his  cattle  much  more  cheaply,  and 
undoubtedly  with  as  good  results.  This  fact  is  brought  out  by  Table 
III,  showing  the  relative  cost  of  protein  per  pound  as  furnished  by 
the  different  foods.  These  prices  are  taken  to  represent  as  nearly  as 
possible  the  market  values  at  the  time  of  writing.  Calculations  of 
this  kind  can  never  be  arbitrary,  owing  to  the  fluctuation  in  prices, 
but  they  show  how  the  careful  purchaser  may  be  able  to  compare  food 
values  at  any  season  of  the  year. 


14 


TABLE 


III. — Cost  of  Protein  in  Various  Foods  as  Governed  by  the  Cost 
of  the  Food  and  its  Content  of  Digestible  Protein. 


Food. 


Corn  ... 
Wheat 
Barley 
Oats  ... 


Price 
per  ton. 


Rye 

Wheat  bran 

Wheat  shorts  

Wheat  middlings 

Rice  bran 

Rye  bran 

Coacoanut  oil-cake  meal 

Linseed  oil-cake  meal 

Cottonseed  meal  

Mixed  feed 

Malt  sprouts 

Alfalfa  hay 

Wheat  hay 

Barley  hay  

Oat  hay 

Straw  

Corn  silage 


Dollars. 

26.00 

20.00 

17.00 

25.00 

18.00 

17.00 

16.00 

18.00 

14.00 

14.50 

17.00 

25.00 

30.00 

15.00 

15.00 

8.00 

9.00 

9.00 

9.00 

3.00 

2.00 


Protein. 


Pounds 
per  ton. 


156 
190 
192 
184 
198 
224 
244 
244 
214 
230 
328 
522 
822 
192 
312 
246 
72 
116 
90 
16 
26 


j   Price  per 
pound. 

Cents. 

16.7 

10.5 
8.8 

13.6 
9.1 
7.6 


6 

7, 

6, 

6. 

5, 

4 

3, 

7, 

4 

3, 
11, 

7.8 
10.0 
19.0 

7.7 


We  are  not  yet  prepared  to  say  that  by  the  liberal  feeding  of  alfalfa, 
concentrated  foods  may  be  dispensed  with  entirely.  As  a  general 
principle  it  would  seem  that  a  small  amount  of  grain  could  be  profit- 
ably fed  at  all  times.  Much  and  careful  experimentation  is  needed  to 
decide  the  often-asked  question,  "Does  it  pay  to  feed  grain  with 
alfalfa?"  We  hope  to  be  able  to  undertake  this  experimental  work 
in  the  near  future. 

SALTBUSHES. 

The  saltbushes  have  a  two-fold  value  in  that  they  are  not  only 
valuable  forage  plants  but  can  be  cultivated  in  soils  containing  alkali 
beyond  the  limit  of  tolerance  for  any  other  plant  of  similar  food- 
value.  Of  these  the  atriplex  semibaccata  is  the  only  one  which  has 
received  any  extended  attention  in  this  State. 

It  is  specially  worthy  of  mention  that  while  the  saltbushes  differ 
materially  botanically,  and  are  not  of  equal  adaptation,  there  is 
very  little  preference  so  far  as  chemical  composition  is  concerned. 
But  much  further  experimentation  will  be  required  before  the  same 
can  be  said  of  them  physiologically,  or  with  respect  to  nutritive  values. 

The  choice  of  the  best  variety  for  a  special  locality  would  depend 
on  soil  adaptation  and  the  results  of  feeding  experiments. 

Hays. — An  examination  of  the  analyses  of  the  air-dried  materials 
shows  that  the  saltbushes  compare  very  favorably  in  nutritive  value 
with  the  other  hays  mentioned  in  table  I.  The  average  protein 
content,  12.89,  is  twice  that  noted  for  wheat  hay,  50  per  cent,  more 
than  the  figure  given  for  oat  hay,  and  is  only  exceeded  by  bur  clover 
and  alfalfa.     The  average  percentages  of  fat  and  starchy  matter  in 


15 

the  saltbushes  are  less  than  those  found  in  cereal  hays.  But  in  the 
case  of  the  latter  nutrient,  the  average  is  almost  identical  with  the 
figures  named  for  alfalfa  and  bur  clover. 

Digestibility. — As  before  stated,  much  more  experimentation  is 
required  before  we  can  definitely  assert  that  these  saltbushes  have  as 
high  digestive  coefficients  as  alfalfa  and  the  ordinary  hays.  Feeding 
experiments  are  called  for  in  this  direction,  and  in  some  cases 
urgently  so. 

In  making  up  a  ration  we  would  assign  to  the  saltbush  hay  about 
the  same  digestive  coefficients  as  those  for  oat  hay.  The  digestibility 
would  be  greatly  increased  if  the  material  were  cut  into  small  pieces, 
as  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  much  more  nutriment  is  derived  from  a 
given  amount  of  fodder,  more  particularly  by  the  horse  and  other 
solipeds,  if  it  is  cut  up  than  if  fed  as  harvested.  This  has  been  practi- 
cally proved  by  many  of  the  large  livery  stables,  both  here  and  abroad. 

Feeding. — It  is  not  advisable  to  feed  the  saltbushes  alone,  particu- 
larly in  the  air- dried  state,  owing  to  the  high  percentage  of  saline 
ingredients,  and  the  general  uninviting  appearance  and  condition  of 
.the  saltbush  hay.  In  cases  of  emergency,  however,  sheep  and  cattle 
have  existed  altogether  on  this  material  through  an  entire  season. 

Mixed  vs.  Unmixed  Foods. — From  the  large  number  of  favorable 
reports,  it  would  seem  that  many  of  the  failures  were  due  mainly  to 
irrational  feeding.  In  some  cases  animals  which  had  never  seen  the 
salt-bush  were  given  quantities  of  the  unmixed  material  and  were 
expected  to  eat  it  with  relish.  Such  a  method  of  procedure  is,  to  say 
the  least,  ill  advised.  Any  alteration  in  the  food  should  be  slow  and 
gradual.  It  would  be  most  unwise  to  substitute  A.  semibaccata  for  a 
cereal  hay.  The  better  plan  would  be  to  feed  a  very  small  amount  of 
saltbush  with  considerable  hay;  then  increase  by  degrees  the  quantity 
of  saltbush  and  decrease  that  of  cereal  hay  until  the  proportions  are 
about  equal.  If  the  green  saltbush  were  used,  then  the  hay  should 
constitute  about  one-third  of  the  roughage  of  the  ration . 

Utilization  of  Straw. — The  value  of  straw  as  a  dilutant  is  becoming 
more  appreciated  every  year.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  straw 
is  dry,  fibrous,  and  unpalatable,  and  consequently  requires  a  succulent 
material  to  be  used  in  conjunction  with  it.  For  this  reason  it  is  not 
desirable  to  feed  the  saltbush  hay  with  straw.  The  green,  however, 
could  very  advantageously  be  utilized,  more  particularly  if  both  feeds 
were  cut  up  and  well  mixed.  By  this  method  the  farmer  is  not  only 
able  to  use  alkali  land  which  has  been  considered  worthless,  but  can 
use  in  conjunction  with  the  crop  from  this  land  another  material 
which  has  been  deemed  of  little  feeding  value.  The  economy  of  this 
plan  is  apparent  without  discussion. 

Silage  and  the  Saltbush. — Silage  could  be  fed  profitably  with  either 
the  green  or  air-dried  saltbush;  in  the  latter  case,  the  dryness  of  the 
saltbush  would  be  offset  by  the  succulency  of  the  silage.  The  amount 
of  silage  to  be  fed  per  day  would  depend  greatly  on  the  animals  and 
the  supplementary  materials  of  the  ration.  The  succulency  of  the 
fresh  saltbush  would  be  preserved  and  the  digestibility  of  some  of  its 
fibrous  parts  increased  if  it  were  siloed.  With  some  other  material  a 
salty  relish  would  thus  be  imparted  to  the  silage. 


16 


OTHER  COARSE   FODDERS. 


Alkali  Weed. — The  Centromadia  pungens,  commonly  called  the 
yellow-blossoming  alkali  weed,  or  tall  tar-weed,  grows  luxuriantly, 
attaining  a  height  of  from  four  to  six  feet  on  lands  of  the  San  Joaquin 
valley  which  are  not  too  strongly  contaminated  with  alkali.  In  this 
respect  it  materially  differs  from  the  Atriplex  semibaccatum,  or  Australian 
saltbush,  which  thrives  on  soils  so  heavily  impregnated  with  alkali  that 
other  cultures  are  not  possible. 

A  comparison  of  the  amounts  of  this  fodder  digestible  with  some 
well  known  and  commonly  used  hays  would  emphasize  the  value  of 
this  plant  for  stock  feeding.  The  total  nutriment,  as  indicated  by  the 
fuel  value  in  one  pound,  919  calories,  would  place  this  feed-stuff  low 
on  the  list.  But  when  we  compare  its  digestible  flesh-formers,  6.15 
pounds,  with  the  corresponding  content  of  other  hays;  we  note  that  it 
rates  almost  as  high  as  barley  hay  which  stands  second;  alfalfa  rank- 
ing first  with  12.30  pounds,  or  about  twice  that  given  for  either  barley 
hay  or  the  alkali  weed.  Hence  we  see  that  the  more  of  the  alkali 
weed  that  can  be  used  iu  the  ration  the  more  highly  nitrogenous  will 
it  be  and  consequently  the  more  beneficial  for  the  animal. 

Experience  has  shown  that  stock  will  not  eat  Centromadia  in  the 
green  state.  This  fact  may  be  due  to  the  presence  of  an  essential  oil 
and  resin  which  probably  disappears  during  the  drying  or  curing  of 
the  plant,  or  to  the  spiny  tips  on  the  leaves,  similar  to  those  found  on 
the  thistle,  which  soften  as  the  plant  becomes  older  and  dryer.  By 
siloing  the  green  material  the  above  objections  might  be  overcome  and 
most  certainly  would  be  if  the  spiny  tips  were  the  trouble.  If  no 
unpleasant  flavors  are  imparted  to  the  milk  by  the  use  of  this  weed, 
then  the  dairyman  has  in  the  Centromadia  pungens  a  most  valuable 
addition  to  his  list  of  feed-stuffs. 

Gourd  Vines  f  Cucurbit  a  foetidissimaj. — This  vine  is  sometimes 
called  mock  orange.  During  the  past  dry  seasons  it  has  served  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  State  as  a  substitute  for  hay,  and,  according  to 
some  reports,  to  good  advantage.  This  plant  admits  of  two  or  three 
cuttings  annually. 

A  glance  at  the  analysis,  given  in  table  I,  page  5,  shows  that, 
chemically  speaking,  this  fodder  is  a  rich  one,  but  we  are  ignorant  of 
its  physiological  value;  that  is,  we  do  not  know  just  how  much  of 
the  different  nutrients  are  digestible  by  cows  and  horses.  The 
figures  stated  for  the  amounts  digestible  in  100  pounds  have  been 
calculated  on  the  assumption  that  these  vines  are  as  digestible  as  dried 
corn  fodder.  On  that  basis  there  is  as  much  nutriment  in  the  gourd 
vines  as  in  any  of  the  cereal  hays. 

Foxtail. — In  this  connection  it  is  of  interest  to  note  the  feeding 
value  of  foxtail  (barley  grass),  which,  when  considered  as  hay,  is 
found  of  equal  nutritive  value  to  oat  hay.  A  ration  made  up  wholly 
of  alfalfa  and  foxtail  hays  in  the  proportion  of  15  pounds  of  alfalfa 
to  12  pounds  of  foxtail,  would  have  approximately  the  same  compo- 
sition and  food  value  as  ration  No.  3  above,  of  alfalfa  and  barley  hays. 
Owing,  however,  to  the  disagreeableness  and  injury  to  animals  from 
the  beards  of  the  foxtail  when  dry,  its  chief  value  to  the  stockman  is 
as  pasture  or  as  silage,  where  the  beards  are  so  softened  as  to  render 


17 

them  harmless.  On  account  of  the  richness  of  foxtail  in  carbonaceous 
material  as  compared  to  alfalfa,  the  latter  is  made  a  more  useful 
ration  by  the  presence  of  foxtail  if  it  can  be  fed  either  in  green  pastures 
or  from  the  silo. 

GRAINS  AND  BY-PRODUCTS. 

Plump  and  Shrunken  WJieat. — "Which  is  the  better  feed  for  lay- 
ing hens,  shrunken  or  plump  wheat,"  is  a  question  which  has  been 
agitating  a  number  of  poultry  men  in  this  State,  and  to  intelligently 
answer  it  two  samples  of  wheat  received  from  Hanford  have  been 
analyzed,  with  the  result  that  in  the  plump  wheat  the  percentage  of 
starch,  etc. ,  is  considerably  higher  than  the  corresponding  figure  for  the 
shrunken  wheat;  while  the  reverse  is  noted  for  the  rating  of  protein, 
that  of  the  latter  sample  being  almost  50  per  cent,  greater  than  that 
yielded  by  the  former,  as  is  seen  by  the  figures  17.10  and  11.70  per 
cent.,  respectively.  This  fact  alone  is  sufficient  to  warrant  a  feeder 
purchasing  shrunken  in  place  of  plump  wheat  as  a  food  for  laying 
hens. 

It  is  barely  possible  that  the  digestion-coefficient  for  protein  in  the 
shrunken  wheat  may  not  be  as  high  as  that  for  the  plump,  but  this 
question  we  will  settle  at  the  earliest  opportunity  by  a  digestion 
experiment  with  our  hens.  It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  that 
the  figure  11.70  for  albuminoids  in  the  plump  wheat  is  a  trifle  below 
the  average;  and  while  another  example  of  two  similar  wheats  would 
in  all  probability  show  the  shrunken  sample  to  be  richer  in  nitrogen, 
there  might  not  be  such  a  marked  difference  as  we  have  between  the 
two  lots  under  discussion. 

Wheat,  Bran,  Middlings,  Etc. — Throughout  the  whole  country 
no  grain  product  is  used  more  universally  for  stock  feeding  than  the 
by-products  of  wheat,  the  chief  of  which  are  bran  and  middlings. 
This  is  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  wheat  is  almost  wholly  used  for 
human  food,  and  in  the  manufacture  of  the  best  grades  of  flour  the 
bran  and  middlings  must  be  removed.  Another  feature  which  renders 
them  so  popular  is  that  they  are  relished  by  all  kinds  of  live  stock, 
and  that  in  the  case  of  bran  it  may  be  fed  ab  libitum  without  injury 
to  the  animal.  Our  analyses  show  the  middlings  to  be  slightly  richer 
in  the  various  nutrients  than  bran,  but  the  proportion  of  the  nutrients 
is  such  that  bran  has  the  narrower  nutritive  ratio.  Bran  contains 
much  more  fiber  than  middlings,  and  is  so  much  coarser  that  it  is  not 
so  well  adapted  to  feeding  pigs  and  very  young  calves.  Pigs  do  not 
relish  foods  as  coarse  as  bran,  oats,  and  the  like,  and  it  is  therefore 
better  economy  to  provide  them  with  the  finer  materials  like  middlings. 
One  feature  of  bran  often  overlooked  is  its  high  content  of  mineral 
matter.  This,  together  with  its  richness  in  protein,  makes  it  one  of 
the  most  desirable  foods  for  growing  stock,  as  calves  or  colts,  where 
bone  and  sinew  need  to  be  developed. 

"Shorts"  are  classed  among  the  by-products  of  wheat,  and  are 
shown  by  our  analysis  to  have  very  nearly  the  same  composition  as 
middlings.  The  two  names,  middlings  and  shorts,  are  often  used 
interchangeably,  referring  to  the  same  article.  Shorts  sometimes 
consist  largely  of  ground-over  bran  with  some  of  the  finer  portions  of 
ground  wheat  mixed  in.     For  young  pigs  and  calves  middlings  are 

132—2 


18 

the  more  certain  article  to  depend  upon,  while  for  older  animals  shorts 
may  be  used  instead,  if  the  price  warrants. 

"Mixed  feed"  is  a  very  uncertain  article,  and  depends  for  its  value 
more  upon  the  honesty  of  the  manufacturer  than  upon  the  name. 
It  may  be  of  good  material,  as  our  analysis  shows  it  to  be,  or  it  may 
contain  large  quantities  of  mill-sweepings,  ground  oat-hulls  and  other 
matter  of  little  value. 

Gluten  Feed  and  Gluten  Meal. — These  are  two  by-products  result- 
ing from  the  manufacture  of  starch  and  glucose  from  corn.  The 
corn  grain  may  be  roughly  analyzed  as  follows :  first  is  the  outside 
layer  of  bran  or  hull;  next  comes  a  hard,  flinty  layer,  which  is  very 
rich  in  protein,  'and  which  is  called  the  gluten  layer;  inside  this 
coating  we  find  the  main  portion  of  the  kernel,  consisting  chiefly  of 
starch,  and  finally  the  germ  of  the  seed.  In  the  process  of  manu- 
facturing starch  and  glucose  the  hull,  gluten  layer  and  germ  are 
thrown  aside.  When  all  three  are  mixed  together  we  have  what  is 
known  in  the  market  as  "gluten  feed."  When  the  gluten  layer  is 
kept  separate  we  have  what  is  known  in  the  market  as  "gluten  meal." 
The  hull  of  the  corn  is  of  comparatively  little  food  value  because  of  its 
coarse  fibrous  nature.  The  germ  is  rich  in  protein  and  fat,  and  is 
readily  digested.  In  order  to  dispose  of  the  hulls  to  advantage,  the 
manufacturer  mixes  and  grinds  them  with  the  germs  and  gluten  layers, 
and  he  often  does  the  animal  no  unkindness  in  the  operation.  The 
gluten  layer  alone,  or  gluten  meal,  is  a  very  rich  and  heavy  material, 
and  should  not  be  fed  in  larger  quantities  than  three  or  four  pounds 
per  day.  It  is  therefore  sometimes  fed  to  the  injury  of  the  animal  by 
careless  or  inexperienced  men.  Gluten  feed,  however,  because  it 
contains  the  hulls,  is  a  lighter  material,  not  so  rich,  and  may  safely 
be  fed  in  larger  quantities  up  to  six  or  seven  pounds  per  day.  It 
contains  about  twenty  per  cent,  of  digestible  protein,  while  the  gluten 
meal  contains  about  twenty-five  per  cent.  They  are  both,  therefore, 
of  great  value  as  furnishers  of  protein  for  farm  stock. 

While  this  is  the  general  distinction  between  gluten  feed  and 
gluten  meal,  the  various  manufacturers  have  introduced  so  many 
private  and  trade  names  that  the  purchaser  is  not  always  sure  of  his 
article  until  he  sees  it.  Some  of  the  more  common  names  are  "  Chicago 
Gluten,"  Buffalo  Gluten"  "Cream  Gluten,"  and  the  like.  The  chances 
are,  however,  that  the  buyer  will  obtain  gluten  feed  as  described  above 
unless  he  makes  an  especial  request  for  gluten  meal.  So  far  as  we 
know,  neither  of  these  foods  is  in  the  California  market,  but  their 
value  will  undoubtedly  lead  our  dairymen  to  call  for  them  before 
many  years  have  passed. 

Oil- Cake  Meals. — The  principal  value  of  these  meals  lies  in  the 
high  percentage  of  protein  which  they  contain.  The  richest  of  all  in 
this  element  is  cottonseed  meal,  which,  according  to  our  analysis, 
shows  41.1  per  cent,  of  digestible  protein.  "New  process  (N.P.)" 
linseed  meal  shows  26.1  per  cent.,  "old  process  (O.P.)"  linseed  meal 
shows  24.4  per  cent.,  and  cocoanut  meal  16.2  per  cent. 

Cocoanut  meal  is  a  by-product  resulting  from  the  extraction  of  oil 
from  the  cocoanut  of  commerce.  So  far  as  the  United  States  is 
concerned,  it  is  distinctively  a  Pacific  Coast  article,  as  it  is  not  much 
known  east  of  the  Rockies.     The  present  market  price  is  about  the 


19 

same  as  wheat  bran,  and  since  it  contains  16.4  per  cent,  of  digestible 
protein  as  against  11.2  per  cent  for  bran,  the  cocoanut  meal  is  much 
the  cheaper  to  purchase  as  a  furnisher  of  the  nitrogenous  element.  It 
cannot,  however,  be  fed  so  freely  as  bran,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  more 
than  four  pounds  daily  per  head  can  be  safely  fed  for  any  length  of 
time.  The  one  objection  to  cocoanut  meal  is  its  lack  of  keeping 
qualities.  It  is  likely  to  become  rancid  if  stored  for  several  weeks,  in 
which  condition  it  is  not  relished  by  the  stock,  and  if  fed  to  dairy 
cows  is  apt  to  flavor  the  milk.  When  fresh  it  has  a  sweet  and  nutty 
flavor,  which  is  highly  relished  by  all  stock. 

The  Unseed  meals  are  a  by-product  from  the  extraction  of  oil  from 
flaxseed.  The  "old  process"  meal  is  the  result  of  such  extraction  by 
means  of  pressure,  while  by  the  new  process  the  oil  is  dissolved  out  of 
the  ground  flaxseed  by  means  of  naphtha.  The  odor  of  naphtha  is 
afterwards  driven  off  by  steaming.  In  the  new  process  the  oil  is  more 
thoroughly  extracted,  and  thus  less  remains  in  the  meal  than  by  the 
old  process.  The  analysis  of  "old  process"  linseed  meal  in  Table  II 
is  of  one  sample,  and  can  hardly  be  taken  as  an  average  of  this  class 
of  meals.  The  linseed  meals  have  a  laxative  effect  upon  the  digestion, 
and  thus  it  is  not  well  to  feed  more  than  two  pounds  per  head  daily  to 
dairy  cows.  They  tend  also  to  make  a  soft  butter  fat.  When  fed  in 
normal  quantities  they  are  very  beneficial  to  the  animal  digestion,  and 
impart  a  soft  glossy  appearance  to  the  hair,  and  therefore  become  a 
useful  portion  in  the  rations  of  all  farm  stock. 

Cottonseed  meal  comes  to  us  from  the  cotton -growing  States  as  a 
by-product  from  the  extraction  of  oil  from  cottonseed.  It  is  not 
quoted  in  our  market,  but  dealers  in  feeding  stuffs  tell  us  that  they 
will  order  it  for  any  party  or  parties  who  will  use  a  carload  or  more. 
In  sections  where  alfalfa  is  not  grown  or  readily  obtained,  cottonseed 
meal  is  one  of  the  cheapest  foods  to  buy  to  furnish  protein,  as  shown 
in  Table  III.  This  is  true  although  its  price  in  the  market  may  be 
higher  than  that  of  any  of  the  other  concentrated  foods.  Three 
pounds  of  this  meal  furnishes  nearly  half  as  much  protein  as  is 
required  in  the  day's  ration  of  an  average- sized  cow.  Thus  it  is  not 
usual  that  more  than  two  pounds  per  head  be  fed  in  addition  to  the 
protein  which  is  provided  by  the  other  part  of  the  ration.  It  is  not 
well  to  give  more  than  four  pounds  per  head,  on  account  of  the  con- 
stipating effect  of  the  meal  upon  the  animal.  In  feeding  dairy  cows  it 
is  also  found  to  produce  a  hard  butter  fat.  Cottonseed  is  most 
largely  used  for  cattle  feeding,  both  beef  and  dairy,  and  with  inva- 
riably good  results.  It  has  proven  so  detrimental  to  swine  of  all  ages 
and  to  young  calves,  that  deaths  have  been  reported  as  resulting  from 
feeding  it  to  them.  So  far  as  we  know  it  has  not  been  experimented 
with  to  any  extent  in  feeding  horses. 

SUGAR-BEET  TOPS,  MOLASSES,  AND  PULP. 

Sugar- Beet  Tops. — It  is  stated  by  some  feeders  that  sugar-beet 
tops  is  one  of  the  best  feeds  available  for  the  production  of  a  firm 
butter.  The  Station  expects  in  the  near  future  to  make  some  elaborate 
chemical  tests  on  such  butters. 

The  sugar-beet  tops  consist  of  leaves  and  crowns  of  the  root  (all 


20 

that  part  which  has  a  greenish  tinge),  in  the  proportion  of  76  per 
cent,  of  leaves  and  24  per  cent,  of  crown. 

The  analyses  of  leaves,  crown,  and  tops  are  given  in  Table  I. 
An  inspection  of  the  figures  showing  the  composition  and  nutritive 
value  of*  the  sugar-beet  tops  shows  that  water  constitutes  about  seven- 
eighths  of  this  material.  One  hundred  pounds  of  the  fresh  substance 
is  found  to  contain  8.25  pounds  of  digestible  nutrients,  proportioned 
as  follows:  protein,  1.71  pounds;  carbohydrates,  6.49  pounds;  and 
fat,  .05  of  a  pound,  with  a  valuation  of  $1.58.  The  analysis  and 
valuation  previously  published  were  obtained  from  an  Eastern  source; 
our  late  work  proves  the  tops  to  rate  the  same  for  protein,  but  to  be 
slightly  richer  in  carbohydrates,  thus  increasing  the  value  from  $1.40 
to  $1.58.     The  fertilizing  value  is  about  $1.65. 

From  these  figures  we  see  that  the  material  as  such  is  worth  more 
as  a  fertilizer  than  as  a  cattle  food.  The  above  estimate  of  the  tops 
as  a  fertilizer  does  not  include  the  vegetable  matter,  which  as  a  green- 
manure  has  considerable  value.  But  it  is  said  that  if  the  tops  are 
used  as  a  food  and  the  manure  saved,  about  three-fourths  of  the 
fertilizing  value  of  the  original  substance  is  still  retained.  While  this 
is  true  theoretically,  it  is  hardly  ever  so  practically;  particularly  with 
reference  to  the  nitrogen,  the  most  costly  of  the  fertilizing  elements. 

In  very  few  instances,  unless  the  animals  are  pastured,  is  the  urine 
saved  to  the  soil,  and  this  part  of  excreta  contains  the  major  part  of 
the  nitrogen. 

The  nitrogen  in  the  manure  is  not  by  any  means  all  available,  at 
best  not  more  than  fifty  per  cent.,  and  in  many  cases  not  eveu  so 
much;  owing  to  the  careless  in  handling  of  the  dung.  On  this  basis 
the  fertilizing  value  of  the  manure  would  be  about  80  cents  (three- 
fourths  of  the  potash  and  phosphoric  acid  and  one-fourth  of  the 
nitrogen) ;  this  added  to  the  value  as  a  food,  $1.58,  increases  the  net 
value  to  $2.38,  and  the  difference  (73  cents)  between  this  sum  and  the 
fertilizing  worth,  is  fully  made  up  in  the  green-manurial  value  of  the 
vegetable  matter  in  the  tops. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  theoretically,  at  least,  the  tops  are  of  equal 
value  in  whichever  way  they  are  used;  therefore  it  would  be  foolish 
for  a  man  who  did  not  own  cows  to  buy  them  and  burden  himself  with 
a  new  industry  for  the  sake  of  using  the  beet  tops  economically.  But 
for  those  who  have  animals  a  wise  choice  could  be  made  by  considering 
the  general  conditions  of  land,  food,  labor,  etc.,  without  regard  to 
figures  and  values. 

We  must  not  forget  in  this  connection  that  the  sugar-beet  tops 
alone  will  not  constitute  a  balanced  ration,  or  even  approach  it. 
They  can  only  be  used  as  a  portion  of  the  roughage  food  given  to  the 
animals. 

On  account  of  the  bitter  taste  imparted  to  the  milk  by  the  beet 
tops,  their  use  as  a  feed  is  not  recommended  in  dairies  supplying  milk 
to  be  consumed  as  such. 

It  is  claimed  by  some  authorities  that  an  excessive  use  of  sugar- 
beet  tops  will  prove  injurious  to  the  animals  on  account  of  the  oxalic 
acid  present;  hence  the  conjoined  use  of  lime  in  countries  where  the 
leaves  are  siloed. 

Beet- Sugar  Molasses. — In   Europe  a  number  of  "molasses  feeds" 


21 

have  been  proposed.  One  of  these,  which  has  been  used  to  a  consid- 
erable extent,  is  made  up  of  bran  four  parts,  molasses  three  parts, 
and  palm -nut  cake  one  part.  Molasses  is  also  mixed  with  dried  blood, 
with  peat*,  and  with  beet  pulp.  The  latter  mixture  is  dried,  and 
possesses  good  keeping  qualities. 

In  a  number  of  reported  European  experiments  molasses  feeds  were 
tested  with  dairy  cows.  No  deleterious  results  were  noticed,  even 
when  four  to  five  pounds  of  molasses  was  fed  daily.  An  extended 
study  of  the  value  of  molasses  as  part  of  a  ration  for  pigs,  steers, 
milch  cows,  and  horses  was  recently  reported  in  a  French  agricultural 
journal.  The  principal  conclusions  from  the  investigations  were  as 
follows:  When  molasses  formed  part  of  the  ration  of  sheep,  pigs, 
and  steers,  the  gains  in  live  wreight  were  rapid.  When  molasses  was 
fed  to  milch  cows  the  total  milk  yield  and  the  amount  of  fat  and  milk 
sugar  in  the  milk  were  increased.  The  increase  is  not  regarded  as 
sufficient  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  molasses  is  a  suitable  food  for 
milch  cows.  Molasses  is  regarded  as  an  excellent  food  for  horses.  It 
was  rapidly  eaten,  and  vigor  and  weight  were  maintained  when  it  was 
added  to  the  ration.  It  may  be  advantageously  employed  for  render- 
ing inferior  hay  or  fodder  more  palatable. 

As  pointed  out  in  the  Canadian  Experimental  Farm  Reports, 
one-half  of  the  ash  of  beet-sugar  molasses  is  potash.  It  is  the 
presence  of  this,  no  doubt,  that  is  the  cause  of  the  looseness  of  the 
bowels  when  fed  above  a  certain  quantity  per  diem. '  When  symptoms 
of  this  condition  are  observed  the  quantity  of  molasses  fed 
should  be  reduced.  Since  potash  is  not  retained  by  the  animal,  but  is 
eliminated  by  the  kidneys,  the  urine  will  be  especially  rich  in  this 
element,  and  therefore  should  be  carefully  preserved  by  the  use  of 
absorbent  bedding. 

The  reports  of  the  Canadian  Experimental  Farm,  already  referred 
to,  notes  briefly  the  successful  use  of  sugar-beet  molasses  in  fattening 
steers.  Three  to  five  pounds  was  fed  per  day,  diluted  somewhat,  and 
poured  over  the  cut  coarse  fodder.  It  is  said  that  the  steers  developed 
a  great  liking  for  it,  and  to  all  appearances  it  gave  good  results.  The 
test  was  summed  up  as  follows: 

"The  most  important  points  in  favor  of  this  new  feeding  stuff  may 
be  stated  as  follows:  (1)  It  contains  a  large  percentage  of  sugar,  the 
most  assimilable  form  of  carbohydrates  found  in  cattle  feed;  (2)  it 
stimulates  the  appetite,  and  (3)  probably  increases  the  digestibility  of 
the  other  constituents  of  the  ration." 

Sugar- Beet  Pulp. — In  the  process  of  manufacturing  beet  sugar  there 
remains  a  by-product  containing  a  large  proportion  of  water  and  for 
which  no  profitable  use  has  been  found  thus  far,  except  as  a  food  for 
stock.  Upon  the  arrival  of  the  sugar-beets  at  the  factory  they  are  first 
washed  and  then  run  through  a  slicing  machine  which  shreds 
them  into  small  strips  resembling  a  large  size  of  twine.  The 
shredded  beets  are  placed  in  large  cylinders  through  which  hot  water 
is  forced  and  the  sugar  thereby  dissolved  out  of  the  beets.  The 
portion  remaining  after  the  sugar  has  passed  off  in  solution  is  what  is 
known  as  beet-pulp,  or  residue.     It  is  of  no  further  use  to  the  manu- 

*  When  mixed  with  peat  the  digestibility  is  reduced,  because  the  peat  acts  as  so  much 
dead  weight. 


22 

facturer,  who  is  always  ready  to  dispose  of  it  at  a  nominal  price. 
Because  of  its  passing  through  such  a  soaking  process,  the  beet  pulp 
comes  from  the  factory  with  a  high  content  of  water,  which  in 
most  cases  is  about  ninety  per  cent,  of  its  total  weight.  It  is  there- 
fore heavy  material  to  handle,  and  the  cost  of  transportation  is  likely 
to  be  high  in  proportion  to  its  actual  value,  either  for  food  or  any 
other  purpose.  The  presence  of  so  much  water,  however,  renders  the 
beet  residue  of  much  value  for  milch  cows  where  other  succulent  foods, 
as  green  pasture,  silage  or  soiling  crops,  are  not  available. 

Several  years  of  experience  in  California  have  proven  sugar-beet 
pulp  of  value  for  fattening  cattle  as  well  as  for  producing  milk,  and 
the  fact  is  that  the  larger  portion  of  the  beet  pulp  in  the  State  is  con- 
sumed by  cattle  which  are  being  fitted  for  the  butcher's  block.  It  has 
been  fed  also  to  some  extent  to  sheep.  Both  cattle  and  sheep  eat  the 
pulp  so  readily  that  there  is  scarcely  any  difficulty  about  getting  them 
accustomed  to  it.  So  far  as  we  are  able  to  learn  all  those  who  have 
fed  beet  pulp  to  either  of  these  kinds  of  stock  have  been  successful 
except  where  they  tried  to  make  the  pulp  the  sole  food.  This  should 
never  be  done  for  more  than  a  few  days  at  most,  because  the  animal 
cannot  consume  enough  of  such  watery  food  to  maintain  life  and  pro- 
duce milk  or  meat.  Moreover,  as  a  general  principle,  an  animal 
should  never  be  expected  to  do  its  best  when  confined  to  a  single 
article  of  diet. 

Storing  Beet  Pulp. — When  a  pile  of  beet  pulp  has  been  subjected 
to  the  weather  for  some  time  the  whole  exposed  surface  decays  to  a 
depth  of  six  to  eight  inches,  forming  a  crust  which  serves  as  a  seal  to 
preserve  the  under-lying  material.  Beet  pulp  may  be  said,  therefore, 
to  silo  itself;  and  the  chief  points  in  arranging  storage  for  it  are  to 
confine  the  desired  quantity  into  as  small  a  space  as  possible  and  reduce 
the  exposed  surface  to  a  minimum.  These  points  are  secured  by  means 
of  silos  of  various  kinds.  Since  the  food  value  of  beet  pulp  is  so  small 
in  proportion  to  its  weight,  there  is  no  profit  in  constructing  costly 
storage  places;  therefore  the  silo  may  be  cheap,  but  it  must  be  strongly 
built. 

The  silo  shown  in  Figure  1  is  used  in  connection  with  the  beet- 
sugar  factory  and  dairy  in  Alvarado.  The  large  trestle  carries  the 
beet  pulp  from  the  factory,  seen  in  the  background,  and  drops  it  into 
the  silo  below.  The  silo  is  460  feet  long,  80  feet  wide,  and  8  feet 
deep.  It  is  floored  and  sided  with  two-inch  plank,  and  the  sloping 
sides  are  supported  by  heavy  posts  set  in  the  ground  and  braced  with 
strong  timbers.  Three  tracks  run  through  the  silo,  one  on  each  side 
and  one  in  the  center,  on  which  a  car  is  drawn  by  a  horse  to  carry 
the  pulp  to  the  cattle  barns  several  rods  distant.  A  large  amount  of 
pulp  may  still  be  seen  in  the  photograph  of  the  silo,  which  was  taken 
March  30,  1901. 

Another  silo  built  on  the  same  principle  is  shown  in  Figure  2. 
This  may  be  made  of  the  roughest  sort  of  lumber  and  of  any  size  to 
suit  the  convenience  of  the  feeder.  The  cut  represents  a  silo  twelve 
feet  wide,  thirty  feet  long  and  six  feet  deep,  and  which  will  hold 
about  two  carloads  of  pulp. 

Figure  3  represents  a  simple  and  cheap  way  of  constructing  a  silo 
by  excavating  a  passage  through,  or  in  a  hill.     The  bottoms  should 


23 


Fig.  1.— Beet-pulp  Silo;  Alvarado  Sugar  Works. 


Fig.  2. 


otff     '-v 


\'  ^Aj^^w/.^^V 


Fig.  3. 


24 

be  planked  iu  all  such  cases  and  means  provided  whereby  the  water 
draining  from  the  pulp  may  be  easily  and  quickly  carried  off.  The 
planks  snould,  therefore,  set  well  up  from  the  ground  and  be  far 
enough  apart  to  leave  a  crack  between  them  after  they  have  swelled 
with  the  contact  with  moisture  from  the  pulp.  The  sides  may  or 
may  not  be  planked,  but  less  pulp  is  lost  if  they  are  covered  with 
boards.  This  silo  may  also  be  made  of  any  desired  size.  One 
used  by  Mr.  John  E.  Koster  is  600  feet  long,  50  feet  deep,  20  feet 
wide  at  the  base  and  80  feet  wide  at  the  top.  The  bottom  only  is 
planked,  and  has  gutterways  under  the  floor,  so  as  to  thoroughly 
drain  the  pulp.  The  silo  is  filled  by  means  of  carriers  bringing  the 
pulp  directly  from  the  sugar  factory  to  the  upper  part  of  the  silo  when 
the  carrier  is  dumped.  In  the  small  silo  shown  in  the  figure  the 
filling  can  be  done  by  driving  the  wagon  alongside  the  top  of  the  silo 
and  shoveling  the  pulp  into  it.  None  of  the  silos  for  preserving  beet 
pulp  need  any  roof. 


FEEDING     STANDARDS. 


Having  ascertained  the  composition  of  the  feeding-stuffs  and  their 
digestion-coefficients,  the  next  step  is  to  know  just  how  much  the 
animals  require  per  day  to  keep  them  in  a  normal  and  healthy  con- 
dition. These  amounts  are  called  rations.  As  might  be  supposed, 
this  differs  with  the  purpose  for  which  the  animal  is  kept,  whether  it 
is  growing,  being  fattened,  used  for  work,  or  making  milk.  A  horse 
that  is  working  hard  all  day  in  the  plow  certainly  requires  more  food 
than  one  that  is  doing  nothing  at  all;  although,  even  in  that  case,  the 
animal  needs  some  of  each  of  the  nutrients  in  order  to  perform  the 
functions  of  the  body. 

The  standards  commonly  in  use  in  this  country  are  the  ones  set 
down  by  the  German  investigators  in  this  subject,  notably  Dr.  E.  Wolff, 
by  whom  the  following  table  has  been  worked  out : 


25 


TABLE  IV. — Feeding  Standards. 
Pounds  per  Day  per  1,000  Pounds  Live  Weight. 


1.  Horse  at  light  work 

2.  Horse  at  average  work •... 

3.  Horse  at  hard  work 

4.  Oxen  at  rest  in  stall 

5.  Oxen  fattening,  1st  period.. 

6.  Oxen  fattening,  2nd  period. 

7.  Oxen  fattening,  3d  period... 

8.  Milch  cow  

9.  Sheep,  wool-producing, 

coarser  breeds  

10.  Sheep,  wool -producing, 

finer  breeds 

11.  Sheep  fattening,  1st  period. 

12.  Sheep  fattening,  2nd  period. 

13.  Swine  fattening,  1st  period. 

14.  Swine  fattening,  2nd  period. 

15.  Swine  fattening,  3d  period. 

Growing  Cattle.  Average 

Age  live  weight 

months.  per  head. 

2  to    3 150  lbs. 

3  to    6 300  lbs. 

6  to  12 500  lbs. 

12  to  18 700  lbs. 

18  to  24 850  lbs. 

Growing  Sheep. 

5  to    6 56  lbs. 

6  to    8 66  lbs. 

8  to  11 76  lbs. 

11  to  15 82  lbs. 

15  to  20 86  lbs. 

Growing  Pigs  (Breeding  Stock). 

2  to    3 50  lbs. 

3  to    5 100  lbs. 

5  to    6 124  lbs. 

6  to    8 170  lbs. 

8  to  12 250  lbs. 

Growing  Pigs  (Fattening). 

2  to    3 50  lbs. 

3  to    5 100  lbs. 

5  to    6 150  lbs. 

6  to    8 200  lbs. 

9  to  12 300  lbs. 


Nutrients. 

Total 

Dry 
Matter. 

Protein. 

Carbo- 
Hydrates. 

Fat. 

Total. 

Ratio. 

• 

21.0 

1.5 

9.5 

.40 

11.4 

1:7 

22.5 

1.8 

11.2 

.68 

13.7 

1:7 

25.5 

2.8 

13.4 

.80 

17.0 

1:15.5 

17.5 

0.7 

8.0 

.10 

8.8 

1:4.9 

27.0 

2.5 

15.0 

.50 

18.0 

1:6.5 

26.0 

3.0 

14.8 

.70 

18.5 

1:5.5 

25.0 

2.7 

14.8 

.60 

18.1 

1:6.0 

24.0 

2.5 

12.5 

.40 

15.4 

1:5.4 

20.0 

1.2 

10.3 

.20 

11.7 

1:9.0 

22.5 

1.5 

11.4 

.25 

13.2 

1:8.0 

26.0 

3.0 

15.2 

.50 

18.7 

1:5.5 

25.0 

3.5 

5.0 

14.4 

.60 

18.5 
32.5 

1:4.5 

36.0 

27.5 

1:5.5 

31.0 

4.0 

24.0 

28.0 

1:6.0 

23.5 

2.7 

17.5 

20.2 

1:6.5 

22.0 

4.0 

13.8 

2.0 

19.8 

1:4.7 

23.4 

3.2 

13.5 

1.0 

17.7 

1:5.0 

24.0 

2.5 

13.5 

0.6 

16  6 

1:6.0 

24.0 

2.0 

13.0 

0.4 

15.4 

1:7.0 

24.0 

1.6 

12.0 

0.3 

13.9 

1:8.0 

28.0 

3.2 

15.6 

0.8 

19.6 

1:5.5 

25.0 

2.7 

13.3 

0.6 

16.6 

1:5.5 

23.0 

2.1 

11.4 

0.5 

14.0 

1:6.0 

22.5 

1.7 

10.9 

0.4 

13.0 

1:7.0 

22.0 

1.4 

10.4 

0.3 

12.1 

1:8.0 

42.0 

7.6 

28.0 

1.0 

36.6 

1:4.0 

34.0 

5.0 

23.1 

0.8 

28.9 

1:5.0 

31.5 

3.7 

21.3 

0.4 

25.4 

1:6.0 

27.0 

2.8 

18.7 

0.3 

21.8 

1:7.0 

21.0 

2.1 

15.3 

0.2 

17.6 

1:7.5 

44.0 

7.6 

28.0 

1.0 

36.6 

1:4.0 

35.0 

5.0 

23.1 

0.8 

28.9 

1:5.0 

33.0 

4.3 

22.3 

0.6 

27.2 

1:5.5 

30.0 

3.6 

20.5 

0.4 

24.5 

1:6.0 

26.0 

3.0 

18.3 

0.3 

21.6 

1:6.4 

26 

TABLE  IV.— Feeding  Standards.     {Continued.) 
Per  Head  per  Day. 


Total 

Dry 

Matter. 


Nutrients. 


Protein. 


Carbo- 
Hydrates. 


Fat. 


Total. 


Nutritiv* 
Ratio. 


Growing  Cattle.   . 

*»  Average 

Age      •  live  weight 

months.  per  head. 

2  to     3 150  lbs. 

3  to    6 300  lbs. 

6  to  12 500  lbs. 

12  to  18 700  lbs. 

18  to  24 850  lbs. 

Growing  Sheep. 

5  to    6 56  lbs. 

6  to    8 60  lbs. 

8  to  11 76  lbs. 

11  to  15 82  lbs. 

15  to  20 86  lbs. 

Growing  Pigs  (Fattening). 

2  to    3 50  lbs. 

3  to    5 100  lbs. 

5  to    6 124  lbs. 

6  to    8 170  lbs. 

8  to  12 250  lbs. 


3.3 

7.0 

12.0 

16.8 

20.4 


1.6 
1.7 
1.7 
1.8 
1.9 


2.1 
3.4 
3.9 
4.6 
5.2 


0.6 
1.0 
1.3 
1.4 
1.4 


0.18 
0.18 
0.16 
0.14 
0.12 


0.38 
0.50 
0.54 
0.58 
0.62 


2.1 

4.1 

6.8 

9.1 

10.3 


0.87 
0.85 
0.85 
0.89 
0.88 


.30 
.30 
.30 

.28 
.26 


.05 
.04 
.04 
.03 
.03 


1.50 
2.50 
2.96 
3.47 
4.05 


3.0 

5.4 

8.4 

10.8 

11.0 


1.10 
1.07 
1.05 
1.06 
1.03 


1.88 
3.00 
3.50 
4.05 
4.67 


1:4.7 
1:5.0 
1:6.0 
1:7.0 

1:8.0 


1:5.5 
1:5.5 
1:6.0 
1:7.0 

1:8.0 


1:4.0 
1:5.0 
1:5.5 
1:6.0 
1:6.5 


Besides  the  necessary  amount  of  nutrients,  the  food  must  have  a 
certain  bulk  furnished  by  the  coarse  fodder,  which  helps  digestion, 
and  tends  to  keep  the  animal  satisfied  and  healthy.  The  measure  of 
the  bulk  is  the  amount  of  dry  matter,  or  organic  matter,  in  the  ration, 
as  shown  by  the  figures  24  for  the  ration  of  a  milch  cow;  of  course, 
this  may  vary  without  any  serious  results.  The  kind  of  food  a 
dairyman  would  give  depends  on  what  is  the  main  crop  or  by-product 
in  his  section,  how  near  he  is  to  market,  and  the  cost  of  the 
different  concentrated  foods  at  his  command. 

Grave  errors  may  arise  by  following  too  closely  the  standards  and 
rations  set  down  by  chemical  research  alone,  without  taking  into 
account  the  local  circumstances,  and  the  individual  needs  of  the 
animals,  as  well  as  the  variation  of  the  feeding- stuffs  themselves;  yet, 
without  any  knowledge  of  the  composition  of  the  substance  fed,  the 
farmer  is  not  only  in  the  dark  as  to  the  benefit  to  be  derived  from  the 
food,  but  is  also'  ignorant  of  the  actual  amount  necessary;  thus,  at 
times,  wasting  considerable  and  valuable  material. 


RATIONS. 

From  the  figures  given  in  Table  IV,  rations  can  be  calculated  by 
having  the  analyses  of  the  different  foods  before  one.  In  order  to 
facilitate  matters  in  this  direction,  Table  V  has  been  made  up  from 
data  given  in  Table  II.  It  shows  the  total  weight  of  dry  matter,  and 
amounts  of  digestible  nutrients  in  different  weights  of  feeding-stuffs. 
The  use  of  this  table  is  explained  on  page  31. 


27 

TABLE    V.— Pounds  of  Dry  Matter  and  Digestible  Nutrients  in  Different 
Quantities  of  Fodders  and  Feedstuffs. 


Lbs. 


Green  Fodders. 
Alfalfa 5 

Australian  saltbush  ....  5 

10 
Barley J         5 

10 
Corn I         5 

10 
Marsh  ("  Biston")  grass  5 

10 
Oats 5 

10 
Peas  and  oats 5 

10 
Sorghum 5 

10 
Silage. 
Barley 5 

10 
Clover,  red 5 

10 
Corn 5 

10 
Oat 5 

10 
Orchard  grass i         5 

10 
Roots,  Beet  pulp,  etc. 

Beets,  Mangels 5 

10 

Beets,  Sugar i         5 

10 

Beet  pulp,  fresh |         5 

10 

Beet  pulp,  silage 5 

10 

Pie  melons ■         5 

10 

Pumpkins  5 

10 
Hays. 

Alfalfa 5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

13 

15 

18 


Australian  saltbush 


Dry 
Matter. 


1.00 
2.00 


18 
35 
,05 

,  1 0 
04 

.08 
2.50 
5.00 
1.90 
3.80 

.80 
1.60 
1.03 
2.06 

1.30 
2.60 


.50 
1.00 

.80 
1.60 

.50 
1.00 

.56 
1.11 

.47 

.95 

.50 
1.00 

4.45 

5.34 

6.23 

7.12 

8.01 

8.90 

11.57 

13.35 

16.02 

4.65 
5.58 
6.51 
7.44 


Proteim. 


.19 
.37 

.13 
.25 
.10 
.20 
.05 
.10 
.13 
.26 
.13 
.26 
,09 
,18 


.06 
.11 

.08 
.16 
.05 
.09 
.06 
.12 
.03 
.07 
.06 
.12 

.62 

.74 

.86 

.99 

1.11 

1.23 

1.60 

1.85 

2.22 

.44 
.53 
.61 
.70 


Carbo- 
hydrates. 


Fat. 


.36 
.73 

.46 
.92 

.51 
.02 
.58 
.16 
.22 
.44 
.92 
.84 
.36 
.72 


.24 
.47 
.60 
1.20 
.37 
.73 
.39 
.77 
.17 
.33 
.20 
.40 

1.86 
2.23 
2.60 
2.97 
3.34 
3.71 
4.83 
5.57 
6.68 

1.90 
2.29 

2.68 
3.06 


.03 
.06 
.02 
.03 
.02 
.04 
.02 
.04 
.04 
.09 
.05 
.10 
.01 
,02 


03 

.61 

.02 

06 

1.22 

.04 

09 

.64 

.04 

18 

1.27 

.09 

10 

.68 

.05 

20 

1.36 

.10 

06 

.67 

.03 

13 

1.35 

.06 

08 

.74 

.04 

15 

1.48 

.09 

06 

.53 

.05 

11 

1.06 

.10 

.005 
.010 
.005 
.010 
.006 
.011 
.010 
.020 
.010 
.020 
.015 
.030 

.08 
.09 
.11 
.12 
.14 
.16 
.20 
.24 
.28 

.06 
.07 
.08 
.10 


Nutritive 
Ratio. 


1:  2.3 
1:  3.9 
1:  5.8 
1:12.5 
1:10.2 
1:  8.1 
1:  4.2 
1:21.8 

1:  8.2 
1:  7.9 
1:11.7 
1:11.0 
1:11.4 

1:  4.5 
1:  7.6 
1:  8.2 
1:  6.8 
1:  5.4 
1:  4.0 

1:  3.3 


28 

TABLE    V.— Pounds  of  Dry  Matter  and  Digestible  Nutrients  in  Different 
Quantities  of  Fodders  and  Feedstuffs.     {Continued.) 


Lbs. 

Dry 
Matter. 

Protein . 

Carbo- 
hydrates. 

Fat. 

Nutritive 
Ratio. 

Australian  saltbush  .... 

9 

8.37 

.79 

3.44 

.11 

(Continued.) 

10 

9.30 

.88 

3.82 

.12 

13 

11.09 

1.14 

4.97 

.16 

15 

13.95 

1.32 

5.72 

.18 

18 

16.64 

1.58 

6.88 

.22 

Barley  

5 

4.57 

.29 

2.16 

.08 

1:   8.1 

6 

5.49 

.35 

2.59 

.09 

7 

6.40 

.40 

3.02 

.11 

8 

7.31 

.46 

3.45 

.12 

9 

8.23 

.52 

3.88 

.14 

10 

9.14 

.58 

4.31 

.16 

13 

11.89 

.75 

5.60 

.20 

15 

13.72 

.86 

6.47 

.23 

18 

16.46 

1.04 

7.76 

.28 

Bur  clover 

5 

4.50 

.37 

2.06 

.09 

1:   6.2 

6 

5.39 

.44 

2.47 

.11 

7 

6.29 

.51 

2.88 

.12 

8 

7.19 

.58 

3.30 

.14 

9 

8.09 

.65 

3.71 

.16 

10 

8.99 

.73 

4.12 

.18 

13 

11.69 

.94 

5.36 

.23 

15 

13.49 

1.09 

6.18 

.26 

18 

16.18 

1.31 

7.42 

.32 

Clover,    red 

5 

4.25 

.34 

1.78 

.09 

6 

5.10 

.41 

2.15 

.10 

7 

5.95 

.48 

2.51 

.12 

8 

6.80 

.54 

2.86 

.14 

9 

7.65 

.61 

3.22 

.15 

10 

8.50 

.68 

3.58 

.17 

13 

11.05 

.88 

4.65 

.22 

15 

12.75 

1.02 

5.36 

.26 

18 

15.30 

1.22 

6.44 

.31 

Oat 

5 

4.50 

.22 

2.19 

.07 

1:10.5 

6 

5.40 

.27 

2.62 

.09 

7 

6.30 

.31 

3.06 

.10 

8 

7.20 

.36 

3.50 

.12 

9 

8.10 

.40 

3.94 

.13 

10 

9.00 

.45 

4.37 

.15 

13 

11.70 

.58 

5.69 

.19 

15 

13.50 

.67 

6.56 

.22 

18 

16.20 

.80 

7.87 

.26 

Wheat 

5 

4.56 

.18 

2.30 

.05 

1:13.2 

6 

5.47 

.21 

2.76 

.07 

7 

6.38 

.25 

3.22 

.08 

8 

7.29 

.29 

3.68 

.09 

9 

8.20 

.32 

4.14 

.10 

10 

9.12 

.36 

4.61 

.11 

13 

11.86 

.47 

5.99 

.14 

15 

13.78 

.54 

6.91 

.16 

18 

16.41 

.64 

8.30 

.20 

29 


TABLE    V.— Pounds  of  Dry  Matter  and  Digestible  Nutrients  in  Different 
Quantities  of  Fodders  and  Feedstuffs.     {Continued.) 


Lbs. 

Dry 

Matter. 

Protein. 

Carbo- 
hydrates. 

Fat. 

Nutritive 
Ratio. 

Mixed 

5 

4.62 

.22 

2.36 

.08 

1:11.5 

6 

5.54 

'.2Q 

2.84 

.10 

7 

6.46 

.31 

3.31 

.11 

8 

7.39 

.35 

3.78 

.13 

9 

8.31 

.39 

4.25 

.15 

10 

9.24 

.44 

4.73 

.17 

13 

12.00 

.58 

6.15 

.21 

15 

13.85 

.660 

7.09 

.250 

18 

16.62 

.790 

8.51 

.300 

Straw,   average 

1 

.89 

.008 

.39 

.006 

1:   5.0 

2 

1.78 

.016 

.77 

.012 

3 

2.67 

.024 

1.16 

.018 

4 

3.56 

.032 

1.55 

.024 

5 

4.45 

.040 

1.94 

.030 

7 

6.23 

.056 

2.71 

.048 

9 

8.01 

.072 

3.48 

.054 

Gourd  J  Vines. 

"Mock  Orange" 

5 

4.30 

.26 

1.88 

.06 

1:   7.9 

6 

5.16 

.31 

2.25 

.08 

7 

6.02 

.36 

2.63 

.09 

8 

6.88 

.41 

3.00 

.10 

9 

7.74 

.46 

3.38 

.11 

10 

8.60 

.51 

3.75 

.13 

13 

11.18 

.67 

4.88 

.16 

15 

12.90 

.77 

5.63 

.19 

18 

15.48 

.92 

6.75 

.23 

Grain  and  Millstuffs. 

Barley,   rolled 

1 

.90 

.10 

.63 

.02 

1:   7.1 

2 

1.80 

.19 

1.27 

.04 

3 

2.70 

.29 

1.90 

.06 

4 

3.60 

.38 

2.54 

.08 

5 

4.50 

.48 

3.17 

.10 

7 

6.30 

.58 

4.44 

.14 

Oats 

1 

.89 

.09 

.47 

.04 

1:   6.2 

2 

1.68 

.18 

.95 

.08 

3 

2.67 

.28 

1.42 

.13 

4 

3.56 

.37 

1.89 

.17 

5 

4.45 

.46 

2.36 

.21 

7 

6.23 

.64 

3.31 

.29 

Wheat,  whole 

1 

.89 

.09 

.50 

.01 

1:   5.6 

2 

1.77 

.19 

1.00 

.03 

3 

2.66 

.28 

1.50 

.04 

4 

3.54 

.38 

2.00 

.06 

5 

4.43 

.47 

2.50 

.07 

7 

6.27 

.65 

3.50 

.09 

Wheat,   screenings 

1 

.89 

.08 

.49 

.02 

1:   6.6 

2 

1.78 

.16 

.97 

.04 

3 

2.66 

.24 

1.46 

.05 

4 

3.55 

.32 

1.95 

.07 

5 

4.44 

.40 

2.44 

.09 

7 

(5.22 

.56 

3.41 

.13 

30 

TABLE    V.— Pounds  of  Dry  Matter  and  Digestible  Nutrients  in  Different 
Quantities  of  Fodders  and  Feedstuffs.     (Continued.) 


Lbs. 

Dry 
Matter. 

Protein. 

Carbo- 
hydrates. 

Fat. 

Nutritive 
Ratio. 

Wheat,    bran 

1 

.88 

.11 

.42 

.03 

1:   4.3' 

2 

1.76 

.22 

.84 

.05 

3 

2.65 

.34 

1.27 

.08 

4 

3.53 

.45 

1.69 

.10 

5 

4.41 

.56 

2.11 

.13 

7 

6.18 

.79 

2.95 

.18 

Wheat,  Middlings 

1 

.88 

.12 

.53 

.04 

1:  5.1 

2 

1.76 

.24 

1.07 

.08 

3 

2.65 

.37 

1.60 

.11 

4 

3.53 

.49 

2.14 

.15 

5 

4.41 

.61 

2.67 

.19 

7 

6.18 

.85 

3.74 

.27 

Wheat,  Shorts 

1 
2 

.90 
1.80 

.12 
.24 

.48 
.96 

.03 
.06 

1:  4.5 

3 

2.70 

.36 

1.44 

.09 

4 

3.60 

.49 

1.92 

.11 

5 

4.50 

.61 

2.40 

.14 

7 

6.30 

.85 

3.35 

.20 

Mixed  feed 

1 

.89 

.10 

.47 

.03 

1:  5.6 

2 

1.79 

.19 

.95 

.06 

3 

2.68 

.29 

1.42 

.09 

4 

3.58 

.38 

1.90 

.12 

5 

4.47 

.48 

2.37 

.15 

7 

6.16 

.67 

2.84 

.21 

Corn  meal 

1 

.88 

.06 

.66 

.03 

1:11.6 

2 

17.6 

.13 

1.33 

.07 

3 

2.64 

.19 

1.99 

.10 

4 

3.52 

.26 

2.65 

.13 

5 

4.40 

.32 

3.31 

.17 

7 

6.16 

.45 

4.64 

.24 

Oil-Cake  Meals. 

Linseed  (new  process) 

* 

.45 

.13 

.19 

.03 

1:   2. 

1 

.89 

.26 

.38 

.07 

2 

1.78 

.52 

.77 

.13 

3 

2.67 

.78 

1.15 

.20 

4 

3.56 

1.04 

1.54 

.26 

5 

4.45 

1.30 

1.92 

.33 

Cocoanut 

* 

.43 

,08 

.21 

.05 

1 

.86 

.16 

.42 

.10 

2 

1.72 

.33 

.85 

.20 

3 

2.58 

.49 

1.27 

.30 

4 

3.44 

.66 

1.70 

.40 

5 

4.30 

.82 

2.12 

.50 

Cottonseed  

* 

1 

.45 

.90 

.21 
.41 

.08 
.15 

.06 
.11 

1:    1. 

2 

1.80 

.82 

.31 

.22 

3 

2.70 

1.23 

.46 

.33 

4 

3.60 

1.64 

.62 

.44 

5 

4.50 

2.05 

.77 

.55 

31 


FEEDING     COWS    AND     STEERS. 


The  large  and  rapidly  increasing  dairy  interests  of  this  State 
render  the  feeding  of  milch  cows  a  very  important  subject.  No 
animal  responds  more  gratefully  or  profitably  to  careful  feeding,  and 
there  is  none  more  willing  to  consume  coarse  foods  than  she.  This  is 
due  to  the  peculiar  construction  of  her  digestive  system,  which,  like 
that  of  other  ruminants,  includes  four  stomachs,  three  of  which  enable 
her  to  prepare  for  digestion  and  assimilation  of  nutriment  from  food 
entirely  unsuited  to  non-ruminants.  But  because  she  can  utilize  this 
roughage  does  not  mean  that  this  kind  of  food  is  sufficient  for  her 
wants. 

As  Dr.  Allen  says:  "The  cow  requires  not  only  materials  for 
her  maintenance,  but  must  also  have  protein,  fat,  and  carbo- 
hydrates to  make  milk  from.  The  milk  contains  water,  fat,  protein 
(casein  or  curd),  sugar,  and  ash,  and  these  are  all  made  from 
the  constituents  of  the  food.  If  insufficient  protein,  fat,  and 
carbohydrates  are  contained  in  the  food  given  her,  the  cow  supplies 
the  deficiency  for  a  time  by  drawing  on  her  own  body,  and  gradually 
shrinks  in  quantity  and  quality  of  milk,  or  both.  The  stingy  feeder 
cheats  himself  as  well  as  the  cow.  She  suffers  from  hunger,  although 
her  belly  is  full  of  swale  hay,  but  she  also  becomes  poor  and  does  not 
yield  the  milk  and  butter  she  should.  Her  milk  glands  are  a  wonderful 
machine,  but  they  cannot  make  milk  casein  out  of  carbohydrates  or 
coarse,  unappetizing,  indigestible  swale  hay  or  sawdust,  any  more 
than  the  farmer  himself  can  make  butter  from  skim  milk.  She  must 
not  only  have  a  generous  supply  of  good  food,  but  it  must  contain  a 
sufficient  amount  of  the  nutrients  needed  for  making  milk.  Until  this 
fact  is  understood  and  appreciated,  successful,  profitable  dairying  is 
out  of  the  question.  The  cow  must  be  regarded  as  a  living  machine. 
She  takes  the  raw  materials  given  her  in  the  form  of  food,  and  works 
them  over  into  milk.  If  the  supply  of  proper  materials  is  small,  the 
output  will  be  small.  The  cow  that  will  not  repay  generous  feeding 
should  be  disposed  of  at  once,  and  one  bought  that  will.  There 
are  certain  inbred  characteristics  which  even  liberal  feeding  cannot 
overcome." 

How  to  Use  Tables  in  Compounding  Rations. — Suppose  a  dairyman 
were  feeding  dairy  cows  and  wished  to  make  up  a  ration  in  accordance 
with  standard  8,  viz.:  24  pounds  dry  matter,  2.5  pounds  digestible 
protein,  12.5  pounds  digestible  carbohydrates  with  .4  pounds  of  fat, 
from  oat  hay,  bran,  middlings,  and  linseed  meal.  A  general  principle, 
where  grain  is  fed  to  cows,  is  to  make  up  the  ration  in  such  a  way  as 
to  have  about  two-thirds  of  the  total  dry  matter  supplied  by  the  coarse 
fodder  and  the  remaining  one-third  by  the  concentrated  food.  In  this 
case,  then,  the  dairyman  would  need  about  18  pounds  of  hay,  which  by 
the  table  is  found  to  contain  16.2  pounds  of  dry  matter,  or  about  two- 
thirds  of  24,  the  total  amount  required  by  a  1000-pound  cow.  Eight 
pounds  of  dry  matter  is  then  left  to  be  furnished  by  the  grain,  and 


32 

about  nine  pounds  will  be  needed,  since  nearly  all  the  grain  contains 
approximately  ninety  per  cent,  of  dry  matter.  For  a  continuous  diet 
it  is  not  well  to  feed  more  than  two  pounds  daily  per  head  of  linseed 
meal,  and  it  will  therefore  require  this  amount  for  the  ration.  We  will 
suppose  that  the  remaining  seven  pounds  may  be  divided  so  as  to  use 
three  pounds  of  bran  and  four  pounds  of  middlings.  Turning  to  Table 
V  for  the  several  quantities  as  above  mentioned  of  the  different 
foods,  the  following  ration  can  be  compounded: 

Lbs.                                                      Dry  Matter.  Protein.  Carbohydrates.  Fat. 

18  Oat  hay  16.20  .80                   7.87  .26 

3  Bran 2.65  .34                   1.27  .08 

4  Middlings  3.53  .49                   2.14  .15 

2  Linseed  meal 1.78  .52  .77  .13 

24.16  2.15  11.95  .62 

Nutritive  ratio,  1:  6.25. 

The  ration  is  lacking  mainly  in  protein,  which  makes  the  nutritive 
ratio  wider  than  is  called  for  by  the  standard.  The  total  amount  of 
dry  matter  is  high  enough,  and  thus  any  change  cannot  be  made  by 
adding  other  foods,  but  must  be  made  by  substituting  some  food 
containing  a  large  percentage  of  protein  for  one  of  the  foods  now 
used.  Cottonseed  meal  may  be  used  for  this  substitution,  and  one 
pound  will  suffice  in  place  of  one  pound  of  middlings.  The  altered 
ration  would  then  be : 

Lbs.  Dry  Matter.  Protein.  Carbohydrates.  Fat. 

18     Oat  hay 16.20  .80  7.87  .26 

3  Bran 2.65  .34  1.27  .08 

3     Middlings  2.65  .37  1.60  .11 

2     Linseed  meal 1.78  .52  .77  .13 

1     Cottonseed  meal  .90  .41  .15  .11 


24.18  2.44  11.66  .69 

Nutritive  ratio,  1:5.4. 

This  ration  corresponds  very  closely  to  the  standard,  and  would 
undoubtedly  give  better  results  than  the  first  one.  The  pound  of 
cottonseed  meal  costs  much  more  than  one  pound  of  middlings,  but, 
considering  the  amount  of  protein  furnished,  the  cottonseed  meal  is 
the  cheaper. 

As  another  illustration;  a  dairyman  writes  that  he  is  feeding  9 
pounds  of  alfalfa  hay,  50  pounds  of  corn  silage  and  5  pounds  of  wheat 
bran.  Taking  the  sum  of  the  various  nutrients  from  Table  V  as 
before,  we  find  the  ration  to  contain  the  following: 

Lbs.                                                     Dry  Matter.  Protein.  Carbohydrates.  Fat. 

9  Alfalfa  hay  8.01  1.11                   3.34  .14 

50  Corn  silage 12.50  .64                   6.74  .28 

5  Wheat  bran 4.41  .56                  2.11  .13 

24.92  2.31  12.19  .55 

Nutritive  ratio,  1:5.8.     Cost,  100  cows  per  day,  $12.85. 

With  the  exception  of  a  shortage  in  protein,  this  is  a  very  good 
ration.  It  may  be  benefited  in  this  respect  by  feeding  less  silage  and 
more  bran,  when  a  ration  somewhat  as  follows  is  the  result: 


33 


Lbs.  Dry  Matter. 

9     Alfalfa  hay 8.01 

35     Corn  silage 8.75 

9     Wheat  bran 7.95 


Protein. 

Carbohydrates. 

Fat. 

1.11 

3.34 

.14 

.44 

4.72 

.20 

1.02 

3.81 

.24 

24.71  2.57  11.87  .58 

Nutritive  ratio,  1:5.1.     Cost,  100  cows  per  day,  $14.75. 

This  ration  is  better  than  the  original  one  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  protein  and  nutritive  ratio.  It  also  has  the  proportion  of  one- 
third  of  the  total  dry  matter  made  up  of  concentrated  foods  as  men- 
tioned in  the  first  illustration.  But  it  is  more  expensive  than  the 
original  by  nearly  two  dollars  per  day  for  100  cows.  The  principle 
referred  to,  in  regard  to  making  two- thirds  of  the  dry  matter  of  the 
ration  come  from  the  coarse  fodder  and  one-third  from  the  concen- 
trates, is  an  Eastern  feeding  practice.  It  is  partly  necessary  because 
the  concentrates  must  be  used  to  supply  the  requisite  amount  of 
protein,  since  most  of  the  Eastern  coarse  fodders  do  not  contain  this 
element  in  so  large  a  proportion  as  alfalfa.  With  alfalfa,  as  shown 
elsewhere,  it  is  possible  to  provide  enough  protein  without  using  any 
other  food.  Taking  the  three  foods  in  question,  we  may  make  another 
ration,  depending  more  largely  upon  the  alfalfa  for  protein,  as  follows: 

Lbs.                                                      Dry  Matter.  Protein.  Carbohydrates.  Fat. 

12  Alfalfa  hay  10.68  1.48                  4.46  .18 

40  Corn  silage 10.00  .50                   5.39  .22 

4  Wheat  bran 3.53  .45                   1.69  .10 


.50 


24.21  2.43  11.54 

Nutritive  ratio,  1:5.2.     Cost,  100  cows,  per  day,  $12.20. 

This  is  the  cheapest  of  all  three  rations,  and  is  as  good  as  the 
second  as  regards  the  total  and  proportion  of  digestible  nutrients.  It 
contains  less  bran  than  either  of  the  others,  but  is  sufficient  to  make  a 
good  palatable  ration.  The  calculation  of  the  cost  of  the  ration  is 
based  on  prices  as  given  in  Table  III  on  page  14. 

Additional  matter  relating  to  the  feeding  of  milch  cows  is  given 
in  the  body  of  this  Bulletin. 

Feeding  Alfalfa. — Bulletin  No.  148  of  the  New  Jersey  Experiment 
Station  reports  experiment  an  comparing  alfalfa  protein  with  purchased 
protein  for  dairy  cows.  They  fed  four  cows  during  a  period  of  two 
months  on  two  separate  rations,  one  made  up  of  corn  silage,  alfalfa  hay, 
mixed  hay,  and  cotton-seed  meal;  the  other  of  corn  silage,  mixed  hay, 
wheat  bran,  dried  brewer's  grains,  and  cotton- seed  meal.  The  results  of 
the  experiment  are  summarized  in  the  table  showing  the  food  consumed, 
the  yield  of  milk  and  butter  per  head  daily,  and  the  cost  for  food  to 
produce  100  pounds  of  milk  and  1  pound  of  butter  with  each  ration. 


Food  consumed  per  cow  per  day. 

Yield. 

Cost  to  produce. 

No.  of  days. 

t 

M 

J2 

xfl 

Eh 

o 
O 

< 

si 

A 

.9 

pi 

U 

A 

■P 

c3 
CD 

i 

.5 

^  si 

9 

a 

<x> 

9 
B9 

Pi 

O 

o 

o 

.2 

ti 

or, 

o 

o 

d 

s 

o 
ft 

| 

5 
ft 

u 

pq 

100  pounds  milk, 
cents. 

u 

0> 

HJ 

£       . 

,Q  CO 

'CSC 
PI   ? 

o 
ft 

Ration  1.. 
Ration  2.. 

60 
60 

35 
35 

11        6 

4 

4 

2 

2 

12.08 
15.38 

20.8 
21.8 

.87 
.92 

58.0 
70.7 

12.0 
14.3 

132—3 


34 

This  experiment  shows  that  while  the  ration  in  which  the  protein 
was  supplied  by  purchased  grain  produced  slightly  more  milk  and 
butter  than  the  alfalfa  ration,  still  the  latter  produced  milk  at  12.7 
cents  per  100  pounds  and  butter  at  2.3  cents  less  per  pound  than  the 
former.  It  will  be  noticed  that  two  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal  were 
in  each  ration,  and  that  there  was  no  comparison  of  rations  wholly 
without  grain. 

The  usual  feeding  practice  in  alfalfa  districts  is  to  depend  entirely 
upon  alfalfa  pasture  and  alfalfa  hay  for  cattle  feed,  except  for  the 
vexing  foxtail,  which  comes  up  every  spring.  That  this  is  a  cheap 
method  of  feeding  cannot  be  denied.  That  it  would  be  cheaper  to 
supplement  the  alfalfa  with  other  feeds,  either  grown  at  home  or 
purchased,  is  not  yet  proven  to  the  satisfaction  of  all.  The  experience 
of  a  few  dairymen  has  shown  that  some  straw  judiciously  fed  with 
alfalfa  has  lessened  the  cost  of  the  ration  and  added  to  its  palatability. 
The  few  also  who  have  fed  corn  silage  report  most  satisfactory  results. 
The  most  simple  rule  of  animal  feeding  is  broken  when  a  cow  is 
required  to  subsist  on  alfalfa  alone,  or  any  other  single  food,  for  no 
animal  can  be  expected  to  do  its  best  when  confined  to  a  single  food. 
The  question  then  comes,  will  the  cow  do  so  much  better  on  two  or 
three  different  foods  to  pay  for  buying  or  raising  the  extra  ones?  On 
many  ranches  food  material  goes  to  waste,  or  is  burned;  such  as  straw, 
which  if  well  preserved  would  be  relished  by  the  cow  along  with 
alfalfa.  And  in  every  dairy  section  in  California  corn  can  be  grown 
in  sufficient  quantity  to  furnish  silage  to  supplement  dry  pasture  and 
add  to  the  cow's  change  of  food. 

A  few  illustrative  rations  will  show  how  the  cost  of  feeding  varies 
between  feeding  much  or  little  grain,  or  little  or  much  alfalfa.  In 
calculating  the  cost  of  the  following  rations  the  same  schedule  of 
prices  is  used  as  shown  in  Table  III.  The  rations  are  each  made  up 
with  a  view  to  secure  as  nearly  a  standard  ration  as  possible  with  the 
foods  used,  and  to  have  them  all  nearly  the  same  in  total  dry  matter. 
The  various  rations  follow :  — 

Ration  1  Ration  2 

10  lbs  alfalfa  hay  13  lbs  alfalfa  hay 

8  lbs  barley  hay  10  lbs  barley  hay 

3  lbs  wheat  bran  2  lbs  wheat  bran 

3  lbs  crushed  barley  2  lbs  crushed  barley 
2  lbs  corn  meal 

Nutritive  ratio,  1:5.2  Nutritive  ratio  1:5 

Cost  100  cows  per  day  $15.30  Cost  100  cows  per  day  $13.10 

Ration  3  Ration  4 

13  lbs  alfalfa  hay  20  lbs  alfalfa  hay 

13  lbs  barley  hay  8  lbs  straw  (average) 

Nutritive  ratio  1:4.8  Nutritive  ratio  1:4.5 

Cost  100  cows  per  day  $11.05  Cost  100  cows  per  day  $9.20 

Ration  5 
27  lbs  alfalfa  hay 

Nutritive  ratio  1:3.3  , 

Cost  100  cows  per  day  $10.80 

Feeding  Beet  Pulp. — We  have  no  detailed  experiment  to  report  for 
this  State  concerning  the  value  of  beet  pulp  as  a  stock  food,  nor  showing 


35 

how  it  should  best  be  fed.  We  have,  however,  the  record  of  milk 
production  from  a  small  herd  of  cows  which  were  fed  beet  pulp  for 
about  ten  weeks.  And  through  the  kindness  of  several  of  the  leading 
stockmen  of  the  State  we  have  secured  their  experience  in  feeding  it 
and  are  able  to  present  it  here.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
results  obtained  from  feeding  the  pulp  in  this  State  agree  with 
European  experience. 

The  herd  of  cows  mentioned  above  were  owned  in  Berkeley  by  Mr. 
W.  B.  Barber,  who  kept  the  milk  record  and  weighed  the  beet  pulp 
which  each  cow  consumed.  The  cows  were  mostly  Shorthorn 
foundation,  with  some  infusion  of  Jersey  blood.  All  but  "Jersey" 
dropped  their  calves  in  July,  1900,  and  she  in  April.  Owing 
to  various  circumstances,  it  was  not  possible  to  keep  an  accurate 
record  of  the  weight  of  hay  consumed,  and  thus  the  amount  required 
by  each  cow  can  be  given  only  approximately.  When  no  beet  pulp 
was  fed,  the  cows  ate  an  average  of  about  20  pounds  of  hay  per  head 
daily  in  addition  to  8  pounds  of  grain.  When  eating  beet  pulp 
the  daily  consumption  of  hay  varied  from  6  to  16  pounds,  depending 
upon  the  amount  of  beet  pulp  in  the  ration  and  the  size  of  the  cow. 
The  hay  was  a  fair  quality  of  oat  with  a  slight  ad-mixture  of  bur  clover. 
The  grain  consisted  of  8  pounds  per  head  daily  of  a  mixture  of  3 
parts  of  wheat  bran  and  2  parts  of  cocoanut-cake  meal  given  dry  in 
two  feeds.  Calculating  this  ration  on  a  basis  of  8  pounds  of  grain,  9 
pounds  of  hay,  and  60  pounds  of  beet  pulp,  it  had  a  nutritive  ratio  of 
1:6.2  and  contained  21.75  pounds  of  dry  matter. 

The  sugar-beet  pulp  was  donated  to  the  Station  by  the  Alameda 
Sugar  Company  of  Alvarado,  through  the  kindness  of  the  superin- 
tendent of  the  company,  Mr.  E.  W.  Burr.  Transportation  was 
furnished  to  Berkeley  free  on  the  first  car-load  of  pulp,  and  at 
half  rates  on  the  second  car-load  by  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad 
Company. 

The  record  of  milk  production,  as  given  in  the  table  below,  began 
on  September  5,  1900.  From  that  date  until  October  10th  the  feed 
of  the  cows  was  hay  and  grain,  as  mentioned  above.  On  the  latter 
date,  which  was  the  sixth  week  in  the  table,  beet  pulp  was  given  to 
all  the  cows  in  small  quantities.  This  amount  was  so  irregular,  owing 
to  the  freshness  of  the  pulp  and  the  dislike  of  most  of  the  cows  for  it 
in  that  condition,  that  a  full  ration  of  pulp  was  not  secured  until  the 
seventh  week.  For  the  succeeding  three  weeks  hay  was  fed  once  a 
day  and  beet  pulp  once,  in  amounts  varying  from  40  to  65  pounds  per 
head,  according  to  the  size  and  appetite  of  the  animal.  Beginning 
with  the  tenth  week,  the  hay,  grain,  and  beet  pulp  were  fed  together, 
each  in  two  daily  feeds.  With  some  of  the  cows  the  quantity  of  pulp 
given  was  increased  5  pounds  per  day  until  they  received  80  pounds 
each,  and  with  others  decreased  until  they  received  only  20  pounds 
each.  After  a  time  the  order  was  reversed;  the  rations  for  those 
receiving  the  large  amounts  were  decreased,  and  for  those  receiving 
small  amounts  increased  until  two  were  receiving  90  pounds  each  daily. 
The  period  of  feeding  beet  pulp  closed  during  the  sixteenth  week,  after 
which  the  cows  received  the  former  ration  of  hay  and  grain.  During 
the  whole  period  the  cows  had  the  range  of  several  small  fields,  but  the 
amount  of  food  obtained  there  was  of  little  practical  value. 


.36 

The  beet  pulp  seemed  to  impart  no  foreign  or  disagreeable  flavor 
to  the  milk.  The  milk  was  delivered  daily  to  customers  in  Berkeley, 
and  no  complaint  was  made  as  to  its  quality.  The  effect  of  the  pulp 
upon  the  flow  of  milk  was  on  the  whole  beneficial.  Most  of  the  cows 
were  decreasing  in  yield  up  to  the  time  when  we  began  to  feed  beet 
pulp,  after  which  all  increased  in  quantity,  and  continued  to  hold  out 
well  until  the  beet  pulp  was  exhausted,  when  there  was  a  noticeable 
decrease.  In  regard  to  the  influence  of  beet  pulp  upon  the  percentage 
of  fat  in  the  milk,  the  records  do  not  show  any  material  effect  either 
in  raising  or  lowering  the  proportion  of  fat.  The  record  of  milk  and 
fat  production  is  given  below,  for  the  study  of  all  who  are  interested 
therein . 

The  milk  record  was  kept  as  follows: — Each  cow's  milk  was 
weighed  at  every  milking  as  soon  as  drawn,  and  the  weight  recorded 
on  a  sheet  provided  for  the  purpose.  At  the  same  time  about  one-half 
ounce  of  the  milk  was  taken  as  a  sample  to  test  for  fat,  and  placed  in 
a  bottle  containing  milk  preservative.  These  composite  samples  were 
tested  for  fat  once  a  week  by  the  Babcock  test.  In  the  record,  then, 
we  have  the  weight  of  milk  for  each  week,  the  average  weekly  per 
cent,  of  fat,  and  the  pounds  of  fat  produced  each  week.  This  record 
is  given  in  the  table  below,  together  with  the  quantity  of  beet  pulp 
consumed  by  each  cow  per  week. 


TABLE    VI. 


Individual  Weekly  Record  op  Milk  and  Fat  Produced  and  of 
Beet  Pulp  Consumed. 


NORMAN. 

LINE  BACK. 

Jersey — Shorthorn. 

Aryshire— 

Shorthorn 

Age  6  years. 

Age  5 

years. 

No.  of 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Beet  Pulp 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Beet  Pulp 

Weeks. 

Pounds. 

Percent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Percent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

1 

156.3 

4.5 

7.03 

174.9 

3.4 

5.95 

2 

148.2 

4.2 

6.22 

183.4 

3.3 

6.05 

3 

154.8 

3.8 

5.88 

185.4 

3.5 

6.49 

4 

148.1 

4.2 

6.22 

182.3 

3.4 

6.30 

5 

138.8 

4.4 

6.11 

172.1 

3.6 

6.20 

6 

139.9 

4.6 

6.44 

165.5 

3.6 

5.96 

7 

154.4 

4.4 

6.79 

365 

171.7 

4.2 

7.21 

355 

8 

158.4 

4.4 

6.97 

385 

169.6 

3.6 

6.11 

455 

9 

142.9 

4.4 

6.29 

385 

174.7 

3.7 

6.46 

435 

10 

138.2 

4.1 

5.67 

485 

185.1 

3.7 

6.85 

545 

11 

128.6 

4.2 

5.40 

560 

189.1 

3.8 

7.19 

560 

12 

144.6 

5.0 

7.23 

555 

170.2 

4.1 

6.98 

555- 

13 

147.2 

4.8 

7.07 

385 

183.4 

3.9 

7.15 

385 

14 

137.1 

4.6 

6.31 

170 

163.5 

3.8 

6.21 

170 

15 

141.1 

4.5 

6.35 

140 

175.0 

3.7 

6.48 

140 

16 

127.9 

4.5 

5.76 

40 

173.8 

3.8 

6.60 

40 

17 

123.5 

5.0 

6.18 

166.1 

4.1 

6.81 

18 

122.9 

5.2 

6.39 

167.9 

4.1 

6.88 

19 

121.1 

5.2 

6.30 

156.3 

4.1 

6.41 

37 


TABLE    VI. 


■Individual  Weekly  Record  of  Milk  and  Fat  Produced  and  of 
Beet  Pulp  Consumed.     (Continued.) 


STRUBE 

JERSEY. 

Jersey— Shorthorn. 

High  Grade  Jersey. 

Age  6  years. 

Age  10  years. 

No.  of 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Beet  Pulp 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Beet  Pulp 

Weeks. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Percent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

1 

176.5 

3.7 

6.63 

121.1 

6.0 

7.27 

2 

177.4 

3.6 

6.39 

120.7 

5.6 

6.76 

3 

175.7 

3.4 

5.97 

125.8 

5.1 

6.42 

4 

162.0 

4.2 

6.80 

119.6 

5.6 

6.70 

5 

144.4 

3.8 

5.49 

118.9 

5.6 

6.66 

6 

131.1 

4.3 

5.64 

123.4 

5.6 

6.91 

7 

141.7 

3.9 

5.53 

295 

129.1 

5.8 

7.49 

380 

8 

140.0 

4.0 

5.60 

325 

108.7 

6.0 

6.52 

350 

9 

144.9 

3.9 

5.65 

335 

114.6 

5.5 

6.30 

420 

10 

140.4 

3.4 

4.77 

485 

110.2 

5.5 

6.06 

530 

11 

156.3 

4.1 

6.41 

560 

117.1 

5.5 

6.44 

560 

12 

145.4 

4.1 

5.96 

555 

109.2 

4.8 

5.24 

555 

13 

142.4 

4.1 

6.84 

385 

104.0 

5.2 

5.41 

385 

14 

125.9 

4.6 

5.79 

170 

98.6 

5.6 

5.52 

170 

15 

128.9 

4.1 

5.28 

140 

105.2 

5.5 

5.79 

140 

16 

129.9 

3.9 

5.07 

40 

89.9 

5.8 

5.21 

40 

17 

123.2 

4.3 

5.30 

90.9 

6.0 

5.45 

18 

117.0 

4.3 

5.03 

89.9 

6.5 

5.84 

19 

111.9 

4.1 

4.59 



84.6 

1 

6.4 

5.41 

TABLE   VI.— Individual  Weekly  Record  of  Milk  and  Fat  Produced  and  of 
Beet  Pulp  Consumed.     (Continued.) 


IRENE. 

SARAH. 

Grade  Shorthorn. 

Grade  Shorthorn. 

Age  6  years. 

Age  6  years. 

No.  of 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Beet  Pulp 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Beet  Pulp 

Weeks. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

1 

186.0 

3.6 

6.70 

149.6 

3.6 

5.39 

2 

175.0 

3.4 

5.95 

147.0 

3.5 

5.15 

3 

167.0 

3.6 

6.01 

145.5 

3.2 

5.66 

4 

172.4 

4.0 

6.80 

130.6 

3.6 

4.70 

5 

166.8 

3.2 

5.34 

*99.3 

3.6 

3.57 

6 

156.4 

4.0 

6.26 

115.4 

3.8 

4.38 

7 

180.8 

3.6 

6.51 

295 

125.5 

3.8 

4.77 

200 

8 

176.6 

3.7 

6.53 

315 

125.4 

4.2 

5.27 

350 

9 

186.2 

3.6 

6.70 

340 

130.0 

3.6 

4.68 

350 

10 

167.2 

3.1 

5.18 

215 

110.0 

3.5 

3.85 

215 

11 

163.0 

3.7 

6.03 

140 

114.9 

4.1 

4.70 

140 

12 

163.4 

3.4 

5.56 

145 

112.6 

3.7 

4.17 

145 

13 

177.2 

3.6 

6.38 

315 

119.9 

3.6 

4.32 

315 

14 

186.0 

3.6 

6.70 

530 

132.6 

3.8 

5.04 

530 

15 

194.4 

3.4 

6.61 

560 

141.4 

3.4 

4.81 

560 

16 

175.9 

3.6 

6.33 

160 

119.5 

3.7 

4.42 

160 

17 

153.7 

3.8 

5.84 

104.7 

4.0 

4.19 

18 

156.3 

3.7 

5.78 

107.0 

4.1 

4.39 

19 

144.6 

3.8 

5.49 

98.5 

4.2 

4.14 

Sick. 


38 


TABLE  VI. 


■Individual  Weekly  Record  of  Milk  and  Fat  Produced  and  of 
Beet  Pulp  Consumed.     (Continued.) 


KEOHAN. 

GEORGIA. 

Grade  Shorthorn. 

Grade  Shorthorn. 

Age  8  years. 

Age  6  years. 

No.  of 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Beet  Pulp 

Milk, 

Fat, 

Fat, 

Beet  Pulp 

Weeks. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Per  cent. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

1 

127.4 

4.4 

5.60 

165.6 

3.6 

5.96 

2 

112.8 

4.6 

5.19 

169.4 

3.8 

6.44 

3 

121.3 

3.6 

4.37 

168.0 

3.6 

6.05 

4 

102.0 

4.2 

4.28 

152.5 

3.7 

5.64 

5 

103.8 

4.5 

4.67 

147.9 

3.2 

4.73 

6 

107.7 

4.7 

5.06 

145.3 

4.0 

5.81 

7 

115.0 

4.3 

4.95 

385 

164.0 

3.8 

6.23 

390 

.     8 

110.6 

4.4 

4.87 

425 

163.0 

3.9 

6.36 

455 

9 

115.3 

4.4 

5.07 

420 

172.6 

3.8 

6.56 

440 

10 

112.3 

3.9 

4.38 

280 

150.2 

3.9 

5.86 

230 

11 

101.8 

4.5 

4.58 

140 

143.3 

4.1 

5.88 

140 

12 

95.6 

4.5 

4.30 

145 

140.4 

4.4 

6.18 

145 

13 

96.3 

4.6 

4.43 

315 

141.1 

4.4 

6.21 

315 

14 

111.4 

3.9 

4.34 

550 

162.6 

4.1 

6.67 

550 

15 

109.1 

3.7 

4.04 

630 

173.9 

3.7 

6.43 

630 

16 

95.3 

3.9 

3.72 

180 

144.7 

3.7 

5.35 

180 

17 

80.7 

4.8 

3.87 

120.1 

4.0 

4.80 

18 

80.9 

5.0 

4.05 

127.0 

4.2 

5.33 

19 

81.3 

4.8 

3.90 

124.3 

4.2 

5.22 

California  Experience  in  Feeding  Beet-pulp. — During  the  past 
year  we  submitted  several  questions  to  some  of  the  leading  stockmen 
of  this  State  with  a  view  to  gathering  their  experience  in  feeding 
sugar-beet  pulp.  The  parties  who  have  replied  are:  Messrs.  Henry 
Miller,  John  L.  Koster,  John  H.  Wise,  W.  Mayo  Newhall,  all  of 
San  Francisco;  Thomas  H.  Silsbee,  Point  Conception;  Fred  D. 
Wiegman,  Alvarado,  and  Messrs.  Vail  and  Gates,  Los  Angeles.  The 
questions  asked  and  the  answers  of  the  different  parties  are  here  quoted. 

Feeding  Beef  Cattle.  1. — How  much  pulp  do  you  feed  daily  per 
head? 

Mr.  Koster.— 90  to  100  pounds. 

Mr.  Wiegman. — About  100  pounds. 

Mr.  Silsbee. — An  average  of  112  pounds  of  siloed  pulp. 

Messrs.  Vail  and  Gates. — A  four- year  old  steer  will  eat  about 
80  pounds  of  siloed  pulp. 

Mr.  Miller. — About  100  pounds  of  fresh  or  60  pounds  of  fermented 
pulp. 

Mr.  Newhall. — The  daily  average  consumed  per  animal  will  vary 
from  80  to  100  pounds.  For  animals  of  1,000  to  1,100  pounds  weight 
the  former  quantity  should  suffice. 

2. — Do  you  feed  hay  or  grain  with  the  pulp,  and  if  so,  how  much 
and  of  what  kind? 

Mr.  Koster. — 10  to  15  pounds  uncut  hay  and  2^  to  5  pounds  finely 
rolled  barley— quantity  regulated  bv  condition  of  the  cattle  and  the 


39 

state  of  the  weather.  In  cold  weather  a  greater  proportion  of  hay  and 
barley  than  in  warm  weather. 

Mr.  Wieg'man. — Abont  5  pounds  of  oat  hay  and  3  pounds  of 
mixed  "chop"  feed. 

Mr.  Silsbee. — 10  to  12  pounds  of  lima  bean- straw. 

Messrs.  Vail  and  Gates. — About  six  pounds  of  barley  hay  and 
straw.  Have  generally  fed  about  8  pounds  of  ground  corn  for  the  last 
forty  days  of  feeding.  When  we  feed  cotton-seed  meal  we  give  about 
3  pounds  per  day. 

Mr.  Miller. — About  ten  pounds  of  either  alfalfa  hay,  grain  hay  or 
straw  chopped  and  mixed  with  grain,  usually  ground  barley,  though 
sometimes  cracked  wheat.  The  quantity  of  grain  varies  with  the 
quality  of  the  hay  or  straw.     The  better  the  hay  the  less  grain  used. 

Mr.  Newhall. — We  fed  rolled  barley  and  chevalier  barley-straw. 
The  best  result  is  obtained  when  the  grain  is  crushed  as  finely  as 
possible,  the  finer  the  better.  Mill  sweepings  of  grains,  flour,  corn, 
etc.,  are  excellent.  At  the  commencement  of  feeding  the  cattle  a  half 
pound  of  grain  per  day  should  be  used  and  a  full  ration  would  be  8  to 
10  pounds  daily.  We  were  from  necessity  forced  to  use  chevalier 
barley- straw  as  a  roughage,  and  from  that  experience,  together  with 
observation  in  the  use  of  hay  by  others,  I  am  decidedly  of  the  opinion 
that  such  straw  is  far  better;  in  fact,  at  the  same  price  I  would  prefer 
the  straw.  In  this  connection  I  would  beg  to  say  that  baled  straw 
would  have  a  market  value  of  say  $3.00  per  ton,  as  against  a  value 
for  baled  hay  of  about  $10.00  per  ton. 

3. — How  long  is  the  period  during  which  you  feed  beet  pulp  con- 
tinuously1? 

Mr.  Koster. — During  the  winter  months,  covering  a  period  of  90  to 
120  days. 

Mr.  Wiegman. — Until  fat;  usually  four  to  four  and  a  half  months. 

Mr.  Silsbee.— 90  days. 

Messrs.  Vale  and  Gates.— From  100  to  120  days. 

Mr.  Miller. — About  four  months. 

Mr.  Newhall.— We  fed  during  the  season  of  1900,  8000  head  of  beef 
cattle  covering  a  period  of  about  four  months ;  but  the  average  time  in 
which  various  lots  were  finished  and  sold  was  about  two  months. 
The  usual  period  in  this  State  of  those  who  have  fed  is  from  three  to 
four  months,  but  this  would  depend  upon  and  materially  vary  accord- 
ing to  the  temperment  and  to  the  condition  of  the  animal  at  the 
commencement  of  the  feeding  period. 

4. — What  is  the  effect  of  beet  pulp  in  the  production  of  meat? 

Mr.  Koster. — On  good  thrifty  beef  cattle  the  production  of  meat 
was  superior  to  that  of  northern  alfalfa-fed  cattle.  The  meat  was  of 
fine  flavor,  good  color,  marbleized,  and  killing  very  white  as  to  fat. 

Mr.  Wiegman. — Makes  white  fat  and  tender  and  juicy  meat. 

Mr.  Silsbee. — Horned  cattle  gained  an  average  of  lj  pounds  per 
day,  and  dehorned  cattle  about  two  pounds  per  day. 

Messrs.  Vail  and  Gates. — Fattens  rapidly  after  the  first  30  days' 
feed.     Makes  a  fine  quality  of  beef,  the  tallow  being  very  white. 

Mr.  Miller. — Has  been  more  remunerative  as  a  food  for  meat  than 
for  milk. 


40 

Mr.  Newhall. — Pulp  fed  with  grain  and  hay  or  straw,  produces  a 
very  well  marbled  condition  of  the  meat;  a  decided  effect  of  the  pulp 
is  the  fine  white  color  given  to  the  carcass  when  dressed.  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that,  coupled  with  the  result  of  confinement,  the  muscles  and 
sinews  of  the  animals  are  softened  and  less  in  evidence  upon  the  block, 
thus  making  a  much  more  acceptable  article  of  meat  for  sale  and  use. 

5. — How  much  per  ton  do  you  consider  you  can  afford  to  pay  for 
pulp  delivered  at  your  ranch? 

Mr.  Koster. — This  would  depend  upon  the  value  of  other  food 
materials. 

Mr.  Wiegman. — One  dollar  per  ton. 

Mr.  Silsbee. — Depends  on  the  scarcity  of  cattle  feed  and  the  price 
of  beef. 

Messrs.  Vail  and  Gates.— After  being  siloed  and  well  drained,  75 
cents  per  ton.  Have  never  fed  at  ranch;  have  always  shipped  cattle 
to  factory. 

Mr.  Miller. — It  depends  upon  the  price  of  beef.  At  present  prices 
we  can  afford  to  pay  50  cents  per  ton  for  fresh  and  75  cents  per  ton 
for  fermented  pulp. 

Mr.  Newhall. — It  would  be  difficult  to  economically  feed  pulp  away 
from  the  factory,  as  transportation  and  handling  of  pulp  is  quite 
expensive.  Factories  sell  pulp  at  from  10  to  25  cents  per  ton;  the 
former  price  has  been  the  custom  when  taken  away  from  the  factory, 
the  latter  when  conveniences  and  facilities  for  feeding  cattle  have  been 
furnished  at  or  near  the  factories.  I  doubt  any  profitable  use  for  beef- 
feediug  at  over  25  cents  per  ton  for  pulp.  At  this  price,  and  the 
usual  valne  of  grain  and  hay  or  straw,  it  will  cost  from  $9.00  to 
$12.00  per  head  to  put  the  animal  into  good  marketable  condition. 
At  the  present  and  usual  price  of  purchase  and  sale  of  cattle  in 
California  these  figures  ($9.00  to  $12.00)  are  the  full  margin  of  profit 
when  fattened  on  grass  on  the  ranges  and  without  any  extra  cost  of 
feeding.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  under  ordinary  conditions  in  our 
State,  except  by  small  farmers,  pulp,  or  in  fact  any  feeding,  cannot 
be  profitably  carried  on;  but  pulp  is  a  most  excellent  thing  to  have 
in  this  State  to  fall  back  on  in  case  of  emergencies,  like  dry  years  and 
seasons  when  cattle  do  not  properly  fatten  on  the  ranges.  I  believe, 
however,  that  small  farmers  who  do  their  own  work  can  purchase 
cattle,  fatten  them,  and  sell  to  a  profit  that  would  be  satisfactory  to 
them,  especially  as  lots  can  be  turned  off  every  three  or  four  months. 
This  would  be  especially  true  of  farmers  in  the  localities  where  sugar 
beets  are  raised,  and  a  long  start  made  by  feeding  beet  tops,  and 
which  would  require  but  litle  time,  say  one  month,  for  finishing  on 
pulp  with  grain  and  hay. 

Feeding  Dairy  Cattle. — Mr.  Koster  and  Mr.  Wiegman  are  the 
only  ones  reporting  any  extensive  practice  of  feeding  beet  pulp  for 
milk.  Mr.  Koster  writes  that  he  considers  20  to  25  pounds  per  head 
daily  a  sufficient  amonnt  of  pulp  for  a  dairy  cow.  With  the  pulp  he 
feeds  from  25  to  30  pounds  of  uncut  hay  and  five  pounds  of  middlings 
per  day.  He  says  there  was  no  noticeable  odor  in  the  milk  when 
feeding  pulp,  but  that  "too  much  pulp  had  the  tendency  to  lessen  the 
yield  of  milk  as  well  as  to  impoverish  it." 


41 

Mr.  Wiegman  replies  that  he  considers  80  pounds  of  pulp  per  head 
daily  a  maximum  amount  to  be  fed  with  profit,  and  20  to  25  pounds  as 
a  minimum.  His  usual  feed  is  about  80  pounds  per  day.  With  the 
pulp  he  feeds  6  to  7  pounds  of  hay  (oat  preferred)  and  6  pounds  of 
mixed  "chop"  feed.  He  has  pulp  continually  and  feeds  it  throughout 
the  year.  If  the  cows  are  fed  wholly  on  pulp  the  milk  seems  to 
become  poorer.  No  foreign  odor  or  flavor  is  noticeable  in  the  milk, 
except  occasionally  when  the  beet-pulp  is  fresh,  none  at  all  when 
feeding  siloed  pulp. 

Feeding  Other  Stock. — Mr.  Koster  reports  having  fed  beet  pulp 
to  sheep  with  good  success,  and  adds:  "In  feeding  pulp  much 
depends  upon  the  age  and  condition  of  the  pulp,  and  upon  the  con- 
dition of  the  stock  and  suitable  grounds  for  feeding." 

Mr.  Miller  reports  that  they  have  fed  pulp  to  sheep  with  satisfactory 
results,  but  do  not  consider  it  suitable  to  other  animals  than  cattle. 

Mr.  Wise  fed  beet  pulp  to  sheep  only.  He  says:  "Our  experience 
was  not  very  favorable.  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  beet-pulp  alone 
will  not  fatten  stock  of  any  kind.  We  had  to  buy  other  food  to  mix 
with  it,  otherwise  our  sheep  would  have  fallen  off  instead  of  gaining 
flesh." 

Additional  Comments. — The  experience  given  above  shows  clearly 
that  beet-pulp  should  not  be  depended  upon  as  the  sole  diet  either  for 
producing  milk  or  meat,  the  chief  reason  being  that  it  does  not 
adequately  nourish  the  animal.  When  fed  in  connection  with  other 
and  dry  feed  it  not  only  serves  to  keep  the  digestion  in  a  healthful 
condition,  but  adds  materially  to  the  store  of  actual  food  substance. 
The  amount  of  pulp  which  can  be  fed  profitably  is  reported  by  all  who 
feed  for  meat,  as  all  the  animals  will  readily  consume  in  addition  to 
the  portion  of  hay  or  straw  and  grain,  as  already  mentioned.  In  the 
case  of  the  profitable  quantity  to  feed  for  milk  production  there  seems 
to  be  a  wide  difference  of  opinion.  It  may  be  that  25  or  30  pounds 
per  day  of  pulp  will  induce  as  large  a  flow  of  milk  as  80  pounds  per 
day  when  the  rest  of  the  feed  is  dry;  the  notion  being  that  the  lesser 
quantity  gives  the  cow  all  the  succulent  food  and  change  of  diet  which 
she  really  requires  for  the  best  production.  Where  the  pulp  must  be 
hauled  a  long  distance  and  the  cost  of  transportation  is  therefore 
great,  it  would  undoubtedly  be  unwise  to  feed  it  in  larger  amounts 
than  would  give  the  necessary  succulence  to  the  ration,  and  25  pounds 
is  probably  sufficient  for  this  purpose.  But  where  the  dairy  is 
situated  adjacent  to  the  sugar  factory,  as  at  Alvarado,  it  might  pay 
to  feed  the  pulp  in  much  larger  quantities. 

Some  further  notes  in  regard  to  feeding  beef  cattle  are  worthy  of 
consideration.  Mr.  Newhall  writes:  "I  would  further  assume  to  say 
that,  in  my  opinion,  the  climate  of  our  State  is  not  the  most  suitable 
for  feeding  purposes,  especially  in  winter.  I  would  particularly 
direct  caution  in  undertaking  to  feed  cattle  during  our  winter  months 
in  small  enclosures,  where  mud,  exposure  to  dampness  and  winds 
have  had  a  decidedly  detrimental  effect."  In  this  connection  Mr. 
Koster  says:  "When  cattle  are  once  started  on  pulp  feed,  particularly 
when  fed  to  be  fattened  foi  beef,  it  is  advisable  to  continue  them  at 
that  until  fully  fat  and  then  to  slaughter  them.     If  cattle  have  been 


42 

ou  this  feed  for  a  season,  it  is  highly  inadvisable,  if  they  have 
reached  the  desired  stage,  to  take  them  on  green  pasture,  as  this 
affects  them  seriously.  Proper  feeding  grounds  should  be  selected 
where  the  cattle  can  be  sheltered  during  stormy  weather." 

List  of  Beet  Sugar  Factories  in  California. 

1.  Alameda  Sugar  Company Alvarado 

2.  American  Beet  Sugar  Company Oxnard 

3.  California  and  Hawaiian  Sugar  Refining  Company Crockett 

4.  Chino  Valley  Beet  Sugar  Company Chino 

5.  Los  Alamitos  Sugar  Company Los  Alamitos 

6.  Spreckels  Sugar  Company Spreckels 

7.  Union  Sugar  Company Santa  Maria 

8.  Western  Beet  Sugar  Company Watsonville 


CALF   FEEDING. 


The  proper  growth  and  development  of  the  calf  is  equally  as 
important  as  the  care  of  the  full-grown  cow,  for  good  cows  cannot  be 
made  out  of  poorly  fed  calves.  Whether  the  calf  be  destined  for  the 
dairy  or  for  the  shambles,  the  true  principle  is  to  keep  it  in  a  thrifty 
growing  condition  until  the  end  is  reached.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
the  calf  be  fat — in  fact,  it  is  better  not  to  be  so.  The  feed  should  be 
such  as  to  produce  bone  and  muscle  to  form  a  strong  framework  with 
which  to  produce  milk  or  upon  which  to  lay  fat  in  the  time  of  matu- 
rity. The  mother's  milk,  if  it  be  not  too  rich  in  fat,  furnishes  the 
best  food  for  the  purpose,  but  in  our  commercial  dairying  butter  fat 
can  be  disposed  of  at  a  higher  price  if  made  into  cheese  or  butter  and 
a  substitute  offered  which  is  cheaper. 

If  the  calf  is  to  be  raised  on  skim  milk  as  the  principal  food,  it 
should  receive  fresh  whole  milk  for  the  first  ten  days  or  two  weeks. 
Then  substitute  skim  for  whole  milk,'  a  little  at  first  and  increase 
gradually  until,  by  the  time  the  calf  is  three  weeks  old,  it  may  receive 
no  whole  milk  whatever.  As  soon  as  this  substitution  begins  add  a 
small  [handful  of  wheat  middlings  to  the  ration  and  increase  the 
quantity  gradually  as  the  skim  milk  is  increased.  Induce  the  calf  to 
eat  dry  grain  and  hay  as  soon  as  possible,  and  give  the  milk  simply  as 
a  drink.  It  will  be  remembered  that  skim  milk  is  highly  nitrogenous, 
and  to  make  it  a  perfect  food  requires  the  addition  of  carbonaceous 
material.  Nothing  supplies  this  any  better  than  corn  meal,  but, 
owing  to  its  high  price,  rolled  barley  may  be  used,  mixing  barley, 
wheat,  bran,  and  middlings  in  equal  parts  and  feeding  from  one  to 
two  quarts  per  day  by  the  time  the  calf  is  two  months  old. 

In  the  case  of  feeding  whey  one  may  begin  when  the  calf  is  about 
two  weeks  old  by  adding  a  little  to  the  regular  ration  of  whole  milk 
and  increasing  the  portion,  as  suggested  above  with  skim  milk,  until 
the  calf  is  a  month  old,  when  the  milk  may  be  taken  away  entirely. 
Unlike  skim  milk,  whey  is  more  largely  carbonaceous,  owing  to  the 
removal  of  the  casein  as  well  as  the  butter  fat.  Thus  the  grain  ration 
should  contain  more  protein  than  for  skim-milk  feeding,  and  for  this 
reason  some  linseed  oil-cake  meal  should  be  added  to  the  middlings  as 


43 

soon  as  the  whey  is  fed.  Whenever  the  calf  can  be  induced  to  eat  the 
grain  dry,  give  a  mixture  of  two  parts  each  of  bran  and  middlings  and 
one  part  of  linseed  meal.  The  calf  developes  a  stronger  digestion  if  it 
can  be  early  induced  to  eat  hay  and  its  grain  dry,  and  drink  the  milk 
or  whey  alone.  The  chief  difficulties  in  feeding  whey  arise  from 
permitting  it  to  sour  before  feeding  and  depending  upon  it  as  the  sole 
food.  While  it  may  be  possible  to  raise  fairly  good  calves  on  skim 
milk  alone,  it  should  never  be  attempted  with  whey,  because  the  latter 
contains  only  about  two- thirds  as  much  food  substance  as  the  former. 
Both  should  always  be  fed  sweet.  The  amount  of  grain  necessary 
depends  upon  the  quality  of  hay  or  pasture  to  which  the  calf  has 
access.     The  hay  should  preferably  be  alfalfa. 


HORSE    FEEDING 


In  making  up  rations  for  horses  we  must  remember  that  the 
digestive  organs  of  this  animal  differ  materially  from  those  of  the 
cow,  the  former  having  but  one  stomach  while  the  latter  has  four, 
three  of  which  are  used,  in  the  main,  to  prepare  the  food  for  the  fourth 
or  true  stomach,  which  corresponds  to  that  of  the  horse.  For  this 
reason  horses  cannot  assimilate  as  much  from  a  bulky  or  coarse  ration 
as  is  noted  for  the  ruminants.  Consequently  when  a  horse  is  being 
heavily  worked  intelligent  care  must  be  given  to  the  feeding.  For 
instance,  from  thirty-five  to  forty-five  pounds  of  silage  can  be  fed 
daily  to  the  cow,  but  less  than  one-third  of  that  amount  should 
constitute  the  daily  portion  for  the  horse. 

When  feeding  cows  it  is  generally  considered  best  to  have  the 
grain  or  concentrated  part  of  the  ration  form  about  one-third  of  the 
total  dry  matter,  whereas,  in  the  case  of  feeding  horses,  heavily 
worked,  the  proportion  of  grain  may  exceed  one-half  the  total  amount 
of  food.  One  reason  for  using  so  much  grain  is  in  order  to  be  sure 
that  we  have  in  the  ration  a  generous  amount  of  protein,  so  essential 
to  the  successful  feeding  of  the  horse. 

In  alfalfa  sections  so  much  protein  can  be  supplied  in  green  and 
cured  alfalfa  that  much  less  grain  is  required  than  is  necessary  when 
the  roughage  consists  of  cereal  hays  only. 

The  following  balanced  rations  for  animals  weighing  1,000  pounds 
illustrate  this  point: 


1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Lbs. 

Material.             Lbs. 

Material. 

Lbs.         Material.             Lbs. 

Material. 

12 

11 

7 

itrit 

Alfalfa  hav         15 
Wheat     "*           9 
Crushed  Barley    6 
ive  ratio,   1:5.7 

Alfalfa  hay 
Wheat     ' ' 
Cracked  corn 
1:5.6 

9      Alfalfa  hay        10 
12.5  Barley     "           12 
7      Crushed  Barley   7 
1:5.6 

Alfalfa  hay 
Barley     " 
Cracked  corn 
1:5.9 

For  a  horse  at  light  work  12.5  pounds  of  alfalfa  hay  with  the  same 
amount  of  cut  straw  forms  a  balanced  ration.  It  may  be  mentioned 
that  it  is  more  economical,  and  also  better  for  the  digestion,  to  cut 
all  the  roughage. 

If  barley  hay,  rolled  barley  and  cottonseed  meal  were  the  feeds  in 
question,  the  ration  would  consist  of  15  pounds  barley  hay,  12  pounds 


44 

crushed  barley,  and  1  pound  cottonseed  oil-cake  meal.     This  ration 
would  be  much  more  expensive  than  either  of  the  others  quoted  above. 

Colt  Feeding. — No  general  rules  can  be  laid  down  for  the  feeding 
of  colts;  but,  as  in  the  case  of  the  calf,  it  is  very  necessary  that 
proper  care  should  be  exercised  in  the  selection  of  foods.  Cow's  milk 
may  be  substituted,  if  necessary,  for  that  of  the  mare.  The  colt 
should  be  taught  to  eat  grains,  any  of  which  may  be  fed  to  advantage: 
the  choice  would  depend  on  ruling  prices.  At  times,  when  the  colts 
are  teething,  it  will  be  found  more  profitable  to  warm  and  moisten  the 
grain  ration.  Hay  of  first  quality,  preferably  alfalfa,  should  be  fed 
in  conjunction  with  the  grain,  so  as  to  properly  develop  the  digestive 
svstem. 


SWINE    FEEDING. 


The  same  principles  hold  true  in  pig  feeding  as  with  other  animals. 
Inasmuch  as  the  largest  demand  is  now  for  small  pork,  the  aim  of  the 
feeder  should  be  to  produce  as  much  growth  as  possible  in  a  short 
time.  The  rations,  therefore,  should  be  rather  nitrogenous,  having  a 
high  percentage  of  protein  when  the  pigs  are  young,  or  as  soon  as 
they  begin  to  eat,  and  increasing  the  carbonaceous  portion  as  they 
grow  older.  This  principle  is  illustrated  in  the  Table  IV  of  feeding 
standards.  We  give  two  rations,  one  for  alfalfa  regions  and  the  other 
for  sections  where  alfalfa  is  not  grown.  Both  rations  are  calculated 
for  fifty  pigs  weighing  about  fifty  pounds  each,  and  can  be  changed  in 
proportion  as  the  pigs  are  lighter  or  heavier.  The  age  of  the  pigs  is 
supposed  to  be  from  two  to  three  months: 

Rations  for  50  Pigs  Averaging  50  Pounds  Each. 

Lbs.  Dry  Matter.  Protein.      Carbohydrates.  Fat.      Nutritive 

30     Middlings 26.5  3.70  16.00  1.10        RaticK 

50     Ground  barley 45.0  4.80  31.70  1.00 

20     Alfalfa  hay  17.8  2.46  7.42  .32 

200     Skim  milk 18.1  6.60  10.60  .20 

Total 107.4  17.56  65.72  2.62  1:4.1 

10  Linseed  meal  8.9  2.60  3.80  .70 

35  Corn  meal  30.8  2.24  23.17  1.19 

55  Middlings 48.5  6.71  29.37  2.09 

200  Skim  milk 18.1  6.60  10.60  .20 

Total 106.3  18.15  66.94  4.18  1:4.2 

The  alfalfa  hay  may  be  fed  in  the  long  state,  but  the  most  econom- 
ical way  is  to  cut  it  in  a  cutting  machine  and  mix  with  the  grain  and 
skim  milk,  allowing  the  mixture  to  soak  twelve  hours  before  feeding. 
If  feeding  green  alfalfa,  calculate  4.5  pounds  of  green  for  one  pound 
of  hay. 

Alfalfa  is  one  of  the  cheapest  foods  known  for  growing  pigs,  and 
so  far  as  experiments  show  it  furnishes  the  only  pasturage  upon  which 
pigs  may  be  kept  without  any  other  food.  If  expected  to  make  much 
growth  the  pasture  should  be  supplemented  with  some  extra  food. 


45 


POULTRY    FEEDING. 


The  proper  feeding  of  laying'  hens  and  other  poultry  should  be 
conducted  on  the  same  lines  as  that  of  other  farm  animals.  There  are 
similar  losses  and  wastes  as  are  found  in  mammals,  and  there  is  the 
same  necessity  for  replacing  and  replenishing  the  tissues,  fluids,  etc. 
of  the  body. 

We  must  of  necessity  know  the  composition  of  the  body  of  the  fowl 
and  of  the  egg,  but  after  that  we  do  not  have  to  make  new  laws  nor  found 
new  principles,  but  have  merely  to  adapt  the  knowledge  we  have  gained 
from  the  investigations  made  for  other  animals,  to  the  hen;  modifying 
rules  and  rations  to.  suit  the  case  in  question.  The  scientific  research 
called  for,  and  urgently  too,  is  that  of  ascertaining  the  digestibility 
of  the  different  foods  fed  to  the  hen.  For  the  cow,  sheep,  horse,  and 
swine  we  have  the  digestive  coefficient  for  almost  every  food  consumed, 
while  for  the  hen  we  have  very  few  reliable  data  with  which  to  work; 
and  in  view  of  the  great  value  of  the  poultry  industry  it  should 
receive  more  scientific  attention  than  is  at  present  allotted  to  it. 

Many  of  the  foods  used  for  poultry  are  identical  with  those  con- 
sumed by  the  cow,  and  the  analysis  of  the  remainder  of  the  foodstuffs 
necessary  for  poultry,  shows  them  to  have  the  same  ingredients  as  the 
others.  Hence  the  principles  expounded  for  the  rational  feeding  of 
cows  and  other  animals  apply  equally  well  to  the  nutrition  of  fowls. 
When  feeding  growing  chickens  the  main  object  is  to  supply  sufficient 
nourishment  to  insure  hardy  growth.  In  the  case  of  the  mature  hen, 
it  is  a  somewhat  more  complicated  proposition.  The  feeder  must  bear 
in  mind  the  fact  that  the  eggs  are  also  the  product  of  the  transforma- 
tion or  assimilation  of  the  food  eaten,  and  the  nature  of  the  ingredients 
of  the  nourishment  requisite  for  their  production  is  best  seen  by  an 
examination  of  the  composition  of  eggs,  shown  in  Table  VII. 

TABLE  VII.— Analyses  of  California  Eggs, 
i. — Proximate  Analysis. 

Shell,  10.81%;  yolk,  32.47%;  white,  56.42%. 

2. — Composition. 


Shell. 


Parts       Referred 

«l?inn      to  Entire 
per  100.         E 


Water 

Protein 

Fat  

Carbonate  of  Lime 93.75 

Carbonate  of  Magnesia ;         .95 

Phosphates .95 

Alkalies,  etc 

Organic  matter  and  water 4.35 

Undetermined 


10.14 
.10 
.10 


.47 


Total 100.00       10.81 


Yolk. 


Parts 
per  100. 


49.70 
15.54 
33.43 


i    1.04 
I 
I 

.29 


Referred 

to  Entire 

Egg. 

16.13 

5.05 
10.85 


.34 


White. 


Parts 

per  100. 


36.48 

12.07 

.23 


Refei-red 

to  Entire 

Egg. 


;     48.79 

6.81 

.13 


,10 


,55 


.65 


.31 

.38 


100.00       32.47 

I 


100.00       56.42 


46 


The  yolk  and  white  contain  water,  protein,  fat,  and  a  small  per- 
centage of  mineral  matter,  while  the  shell  consists  almost  entirely  of 
mineral  matter  of  which  carbonate  of  lime  constitutes  94%  or  over 
10%  of  the  entire  weight  of  the  egg.  That  is,  in  one  dozen  good 
sized  eggs  there  are  fully  2.5  ounces  of  carbonate  of  lime,  familiar  to 
all  under  the  name  of  marble.  We  thus  have  proved  to  us  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  a  generous  supply  of  lime  in  the  diet  of  the  hen. 

In  feeding  other  farm  animals  the  quantities  consumed  per  day  are 
termed  rations  and  the  standards  calculated  for  1,000  pounds  live 
weight;  consequently,  in  order  that  the  rations  for  fowls  may  be  com- 
parable with  these  standards,  we  will  give  the  requirements  for  1,000 
pounds  live  weight,  which  for  hens  averaging  three  pounds  is: 


Dry 

matter. 

52 


Protein. 


S.4 


Fat. 


Carbo- 
ydrates. 

Nutritive 
Ratio. 

33 

1:5.0 

Calculating  this  for  100  hens,  we  have  respectively: 

16  2.52  1.2  9.9  1:5.0 


The  analyses  of  the  foods  available  for  poultry  feeding  and  com- 
pounding rations  will  be  found  in  Tables  I,  II,  and  V. 

From  the  data  given  there,  the  rations  given  below  have  been 
calculated . 


Kation  1 
6  lbs  wheat 
2  lbs  bran 
2  lbs  middlings 
5  lbs  crushed  barley 
1  lb      coeoanut      oilcake 

meal 
4  lbs  alfalfa  hay 
.75  lb  blood  meal 


Ration  2 
11  lbs  wheat 

3  lbs  bran 

4  lbs  middlings 
2  lbs  alfalfa  hay 
1  lb    meat  meal 


Ration  4 
7.0  lbs  wheat 
3.5  lbs  bran 
2.0  lbs  alfalfa 
4.5  lbs  crushed  barley 
1.0  lbs  meat  meal 


Ration  3 
1  lb    wheat 
3  lbs  bran 

5  lbs  crushed  barley 
5.6  lbs  coeoanut,  oil-cake 

meal 
5.5  lbs  alfalfa  hay 


Ration  5 
9  lbs  bran 
5  lbs  middlings 
5  lbs  bran 
15  lbs  skim  milk 


Mineral  Matter. — While  the  above-mentioned  rations  are  balanced 
with  reference  to  the  organic  ingredients,  they  are  not  so  when  the 
mineral  or  inorganic  constituents  are  considered;  particularly  is  this 
true  in  the  case  of  lime.  If  all  the  mineral  matter  in  the  foregoing 
rations  were  lime  it  would  not  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  requirements 
for  the  eggs  which  the  hens  consuming  the  food  would  lay.  We 
therefore  see  that  lime  must  be  supplied  otherwise  than  by  food. 

Wastes  of  the  Ben. — The  mineral  matter  of  the  food  eaten  is  not 
entirely  assimilated  by  the  body.  And  the  composition  of  the  hen 
manure,  given  below,  proves  that  this  is  likewise  true  of  the  nutri- 
ents. 


47 

Composition  of  Hen  Manure. 

Water 56.00 

Organic  matter 25.50 

Nitrogen 1.60 

Phosphoric  acid 1.75 

Potash ." 85 

Lime 2.25 

Magnesia  75 

Insoluble  residue,  etc. 11.30 

Total 100.00 

The  un assimilated  fat  and  carbohydrates  are  included  in  the 
"organic  matter",  and  the  undigested  portion  the  "nitrogen." 

The  Lime  Supply. — One  of  the  best  materials  that  a  poultryman 
can  use  for  supplying  the  requisite  lime  is  oyster  shell,  or  any  other 
variety  of  shells.  An  experiment  in  this  direction  was  made  at  the 
New  York  Experiment  Station,  and  the  result  was  such  that  the  use  of 
oyster  shells  during  the  laying  season,  where  they  can  be  cheaply 
obtained,  was  strongly  recommended.  It  was  found  there  that  one 
pound  of  oyster  shells  contained  sufficient  lime  for  the  shells  of  about 
seven  dozen  eggs. 

Shells  are  not  the  only  source  for  the  lime  necessary  for  egg  shells. 
Bones  also  contain  a  large  percentage  of  lime  as  is  seen  from  the  fol- 
lowing analysis  of  clean  dry  bones  of  oxen  and  sheep : 

Per  cent. 

Carbonate  of  lime 6  to    7 

Phosphate  of  lime 58  to  63 

Phosphate  of  magnesia 1  to    2 

Fluoride  of  calcium 2 

Organic  matter 25  to  30 

Fresh  green  bones  also  contain,  besides  the  lime  compounds,  some 
protein  or  flesh-formers,  which  add  to  its  value  as  a  poultry  food. 
The  best  way  to  render  the  bones  available  is  to  have  them  broken  by 
means  of  the  bone  cutter.  One  pound  of  the  green  bones  is  generally 
considered  sufficient  for  sixteen  hens.  Besides  the  cut  bones  or 
oyster  shells,  the  hens  must  have  a  generous  supply  of  some  kind  of 
grit,  very  coarse  sand  or  broken  crockery.  This  grit  serves  as  teeth 
for  the  hens,  and  when  they  are  unable  to  obtain  it  indigestion  and 
other  ailments  are  sure  to  follow. 

Necessity  of  Variety  of  Foods. — An  examination  of  the  rations 
given  on  page  46  proves  that  in  order  to  have  the  proper  proportions 
of  the  different  ingredients,  or  to  balance  the  ration,  we  must  have  a 
variety  of  foods  at  our  command.  It  would  be  impossible  to  make  a 
balanced  ration  solely  from  the  grain  feed-stuffs.  If  the  necessary 
amount  of  flesh-formers  is  obtained  by  the  use  of  grain,  then  the  fat 
and  heat  producers  in  the  ration  will  be  greatly  in  excess;  on  the 
other  hand,  if  the  carbohydrates  or  fattening  ingredients  are  made 
the  standard,  then  when  the  proper  proportion  of  this  part  of  the  food 
is  supplied  by  the  grain,  the  flesh-formers  will  be  lacking  to  a  con- 
siderable extent. 

We  have  to  depend  on  the  peas,  beans,  different  oilcake  meals, 
blood  meal  or  dried  blood  and  fresh  meat  or  meat  meal  for  supple- 
menting the  deficiency  of  the  flesh-formers. 


48 

By  fresh  meat  is  meant  lean  meat  with  the  minimum  amount  of 
fat.  Buyers  should  be  careful  in  regard  to  this  point,  as  a  large  per- 
cent of  fat  would  be  worse  than  useless  for  the  purpose  of  the  feeder. 

All  of  these  as  noted  in  the  tables  are  highly  concentrated  foods, 
the  richest  and  most  costly  being  dried  blood  or  blood  meal,  contain- 
ing about  80%  protein,  which  is  nearly  twice  the  corresponding  figure 
for  meat  meal  and  approaches  four  times  the  rating  of  this  ingredient 
in  the  pea  and  bean.  It  probably  varies  less  in  composition  than  any 
of  the  foods  in  question.  Experience  has  proved  that  the  best  results 
are  obtained  when  some  animal  food  forms  a  part  of  the  ration  in 
about  the  proportions  shown  in  the  foregoing  rations. 

The  nutritive  ratio  of  the  ration,  or  the  ratio  between  the  flesh- 
formers  and  fat  and  heat  producers,  should  vary  according  to  the 
maturity  of  the  hen  and  the  period  of  feeding.  The  nutritive  ratio  in 
the  case  of  growing  chicks  should  be  narrower  than  when  the  hen  is 
mature  or  when  she  is  being  fattened  for  the  market. 

When  the  hens  are  not  laying  they  only  require  a  maintenance 
diet  which  is  not  as  rich  a  one  as  that  for  hens  during  the  laying 
period,  either  in  flesh-formers  or  fat-formers  and  heat-producers; 
neither  is  there  any  necessity  for  the  oyster  shells  or  substitutes. 

Foods  for  Growing  Fowls. — The  amount  of  food  required  for  grow- 
ing chicks  and  pullets  is  larger  than  that  for  full-grown  fowls. 
According  to  Professor  Wheeler  of  New  York  State  Station  the 
quantities  of  water-free  food  requisite  for  every  one  hundred  pounds 
live  weight  fed,  is  10.6  pounds  at  about  one  pound  average  weight; 
at  two  pounds  live  weight,  7.5  pounds;  at  three,  6.4  pounds;  at  four, 
5.5  pounds;  at  five,  5.3  pounds;  at  six,  4.9  pounds;  at  seven,  4.7 
pounds;  at  eight,  4.0  pounds;  at  nine,  3.3  pounds;  at  ten,  average 
weight,  3.2  pounds  of  food.  The  amount  of  green  or  fresh  food 
equivalent  to  the  above  different  weights  would  be  correspondingly 
increased.  Professor  Wheeler  further  states  that  these  are  the 
amounts  taken  by  the  growing  fowls  which  normally  attain  to  the 
higher  weights  given,  and  which  are  still  immature  and  growing 
rapidly  when  at  five  and  six  pounds  average  weight. 

Water. — The  great  necessity  of  water  for  the  hen  is  shown  by  the 
high  content  of  this  element  in  the  body  and  also  in  the  egg.  In  one 
dozen  eggs  there  is  almost  one  pint  of  water.  About  four  gallons  of 
palatable  water  (one  that  is  suitable  for  domestic  purposes)  are 
required  per  day  for  one  .hundred  hens.  Too  much  stress  cannot  be 
placed  on  the  necessity  of  having  good  water,  as  impure  water  will 
undoubtedly  cause  sickness  among  the  poultry.  The  more  "green" 
food  consumed  the  less  will  be  the  quantity  of  water  needed. 


49 


FOOD    VALUE    OF    FRUITS    FOR    LIVE    STOCK. 


The  use  of  fruits  as  a  part  of  the  food  for  stock  is  exciting  more 
attention  on  the  part  of  the  horticulturist  every  year.  In  almost  every 
orchard  there  is  some  fruit  which  cannot  be  placed  on  the  market. 
The  chief  causes  for  this  are  (1)  the  "windfalls,"  which  are  generally 
immature,  and  even  if  first-class,  the  fruit  would  be  bruised  or  injured 
to  such  a  degree  as  to  preclude  its  sale.  (2)  Freights  may  be  so  high, 
and  prices  so  low,  as  to  leave  no  profit  to  the  grower  in  any  but  the 
best  of  the  crop;  and  sometimes  even  for  that  he  receives  very  small 
returns. 

The  question,  then,  is  what  to  do  with  the  fruit?  The  idea  naturally 
suggests  itself  to  the  orchardist  to  feed  the  fruit  to  cattle  and  hogs. 
But  he  is  undecided  as  to  its  merits  as  a  food  for  the  animals  and,  as 
to  the  comparative  value  of  the  different  fruits  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  grains  and  various  feeding-stuffs  on  the  other.  The  object  of  this 
article  is  to  throw  some  light  on  the  subject,  and  the  following  table, 
containing  the  analyses  of  some  of  the  different  California  fruits,  has 
been  prepared  in  a  similar  manner  to  those  of  cattle-foods  given  above. 
Comparison  between  the  grain  and  fruit  may  be  made  by  referring  to 
Tables  I  and  II. 


TABLE  VIII.— Composition  of  Fruits. 
A. — Edible   Portion.     Percentage  Composition. 


Water. 

Ash. 

Protein 

84.80 

.50 

.40 

88.30 

.41 

.76 

76.70 

.50 

1.40 

83.90 

.54 

.56 

78.40 

.52 

1.00 

80.20 

.47 

.85 

85.07 

.48 

1.04 

82.90 

.49 

.63 

79.11 

.58 

1.50 

80.12 

.50 

1.26 

90.25 

.81 

1.07 

89.97 

1.24 

1.43 

92.07 

.30 

.76 

90.18 

.66 

.60 

18.95 

2.24 

4.50 

25.00 

1.79 

3.21 

25.00 

2.42 

5.23 

25.00 

2.14 

2.76 

25.00 

2.08 

5.40 

Fiber. 


Sugar, 

Starch, 

etc. 


Fat. 


Apples 

Oranges 

Apple  pomace 

Pears  

Plums 

Prunes  (all) 

Apricots 

Nectarines 

Figs 

Grapes 

Watermelons  

Watermelons  (rind) 

Watermelons  (pulp  and  juice) 
Nutmeg  melon  (entire)  

Raisins 

Dried  prunes 

Dried  apricots 

Dried  peaches  

Dried  figs 


a  Chiefly  sugar. 
VV2— 4 


1.50 


3.90 
2.73 


12.5 


10.53 
16.20 
11.46 


20.18a 
18.48a 
13.41a 
15.99a 
18.79a 


67.71a 
70.00a 
67.35a 
70.03a 
67.52a 


,30 


1.30 
.79 


7.86a 

1.41 

5.59 

.36 

.47 

5.80 

.60 

.48 

7.85 

.23 

50 


TABLE  VIII.  —  Composition  of  Fruits.     [Continued.] 
B. — Amount  Digestible  in   ioo  Pounds. 


Apples  

Oranges  

Apple  pomace    

Pears 

Plums 

Prunes  (all) 

Apricots 

Nectarines 

Figs 

Grapes  

Watermelons  

Watermelons  (rind) 

Watermelons  (rind,  pulp,  juice) 
Nutmeg  melon  (entire) 

Raisins 

Dried  prunes 

Dried  apricots  

Dried  peaches 

Dried  figs ...-. 


Protein. 

.30 
.57 

1.00 
.42 
.75 
.64 
.78 
.49 

1.12 
.95 
.81 

1.08 
.57 
.45 

3.38 
2.42 
3.92 
2.14 
4.03 


Carbo- 
hydrates. 


12.80 

9.66 

11.90 

12.90 

18.40 

17.89 

13.04 

15.77 

17.95 

17.72 

5.90 

4.20 

4.58 

5.89 


Fat. 


1.10 
.63 


.28 
.48 
.18 


65.18 
67.80 
65.46 
68.07 
64.62 


Nutritive 
Ratio. 


1:44.2 

10.9 

24.7 

33.7 

24.4 

27.9 

16.7 

32.2 

16.0 

18.6 

7.3 

4.5 

9.7 

14.0 

19.3 
16.7 
27.9 
32.2 
16.0 


Note. — In  fresh  stone  fruit  six  per  cent  of  the  entire  weight  consists  of  pit. 
In  dried  fruit  the  corresponding  percentage  is  about  doubled. 

Comparisons  from  the  Tables. — Viewing  these  tables  side  by  side, 
we  note  that  the  fresh  fruits  contain  from  eight  to  ten  times  as  much 
water  as  do  the  grains  and  meals.  Hence,  equal  weights  of  the  two 
classes  of  foods  could  not  be  used  with  the  expectation  of  obtaining 
from  each  the  same  nutritive  value.  This  is  true,  even  if  the  propor- 
tion of  the  nutrients  were  alike  in  fruits  and  grains;  but  the  ratio  is 
far  from  being  similar,  as  is  shown  by  glancing  at  the  nutritive  ratio 
of  the  different  materials.  Among  the  grains  and  meals  the  ratio  is 
much  narrower,  and  more  nitrogenous,  than  in  the  case  of  fruits; 
that  is,  in  the  fruits  there  are  more  carbohydrates,  for  the  same  amount 
of  protein,  than  is  noted  for  the  grains. 

The  next  question  is,  how  to  compare  the  two  kinds  of  foods? 
Suppose  we  try  on  the  basis  of  the  protein  or  nitrogenous  part  of  the 
material;  and  for  this  comparison  we  will  take  wheat  on  the  one  hand 
and  fresh  apricots  on  the  other.  The  former  is  a  good  average  of  the 
grains,  and  the  latter  of  the  fruits.  The  following  little  table  shows 
the  respective  contents  of  the  nutrients  in  10  pounds  wheat,  and  a  like 
quantity  of  apricots,  edible  portion,  which  will  be  about  10.6  pounds 
whole  fruit: 


Water. 

Ash. 

DIGESTIBLE. 

Fuel 

Value 

(Calories.) 

Nutritive 
Ratio. 

Protein. 

Carbo-              F   . 
hydrates.           * at" 

10  lbs  Wheat  .. 
10  lbs  Apricots 
(fresh) 

1.14 
8.51 

.17 

.05 

.91 

.08 

6.42 
1.31 

.10 

14,060 

2,570 

1:  7.3 
1:16.7 

We  perceive  that  wheat  contains  over  eleven  times  as  much  nitro- 
genous, or  flesh-forming,  ingredients  as  we  find  in  fresh  apricots;   in 


51 

other  words,  it  would  require  11  pounds  of  apricots  to  equal  1  pound  of 
wheat.  The  same  can  be  said  of  nearly  all  the  other  fresh  fruits. 
Even  in  the  case  of  figs,  which  yield,  among  the  fresh  fruits  repre- 
sented, the  highest  protein  per  cent.,  we  would  require  8  pounds  to 
equal  1  pound  of  wheat  in  respect  to  this  highly  important  element  of 
the  food.  Hence  we  might  say,  in  general,  that  the  grains  are  from 
eight  to  twelve  times  as  rich  in  muscle-forming  material  as  are  the 
fruits. 

When  we  compare  the  foods  as  regards  the  carbohydrates  (sugar, 
etc.),  or  heat-producers,  the  comparison  is  not  so  disadvantageous  to 
the  fruits.  The  wheat  has  only  about  five  times  the  content  of 
carbohydrates  that  is  given  for  the  apricots,  as  is  shown  by  the  figures 
6.42  for  wheat,  and  1.31  for  apricots;  5.3  pounds  of  apricots  will  have 
as  much  fattening  ingredients  as  will  1  pound  of  wheat. 

For  some  of  the  other  fresh  fruits,  as  figs,  grapes,  prunes,  and 
plums,  the  proportion  is  still  more  favorable — from  3  to  4  pounds  only 
of  the  fruit  are  equivalent  in  carbohydrates  to  1  pound  of  grain, 
whereas  in  the  melons  the  corresponding  figures  are  from  10  to  12. 
Dried  fruits  make,  naturally,  a  far  better  showing,  as  they  more 
nearly  approach  in  food  value  the  grains,  meals,  etc.  The  following 
tabular  statement  illustrates  this  fact: 

10  lbs.  wheat  contain  .91  lbs.  protein  and  6.42  lbs.  carbohydrates 
10  lbs.  raisins  contain  .34  lbs.  protein  and  6.52  lbs.  carbohydrates 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  carbohydrates  in  the  two  materials  are 
almost  identical,  and  that  the  protein  in  the  wheat  is  less  than  three 
times  the  amount  found  in  raisins,  which  are  a  fair  example  of  dried 
fruits.  An  inspection  of  the  figures  given  for  the  fuel  value, 
expressed  in  calories,  will  show  the  capacity  of  the  different  materials 
for  producing  heat  and  energy;  the  grains  and  meals  rating  from 
about  four  to  twelve  times  higher  than  the  fresh  fruits,  while  the  dried 
fruits  do  not  differ  materially  in  this  relation  from  wheat  and  its 
by-products,  and  cocoanut-cake  meal. 

The  fuel-value  data  alone,  however,  are  not  sufficient  to  determine 
the  nature  of  the  food;  that  is,  whether  nitrogenous  or  starchy.  We 
must  know  the  protein,  or  flesh-forming  ingredients,  in  addition  to  the 
fuel  value,  in  which  case  we  can  tell  the  kind  of  material  in  question. 

How  to  Use  Fruit  in  Feeding. — It  would  seem,  from  the  foregoing, 
that  the  feeder  is  in  a  dilemma.  If  he  wishes  to  give  the  necessary 
amount  of  protein  to  the  animal  by  means  of  most  of  the  fresh  fruits 
in  place  of  grain,  he  will  have  to  add  two  or  three  times  the  requisite 
quantity  of  fattening  or  heat-producing  ingredients — an  addition  not 
generally  sought  after.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  carbohydrates  are 
made  the  standard,  then  when  the  proper  amount  of  this  part  of  the 
food  is  supplied  by  the  fruit,  the  protein  will  be  lacking  to  a  consider- 
able extent.  It  appears  then,  that,  the  best  way  out  of  the  difficulty 
would  be  to  use  enough  fruit  to  supply  the  fattening  elements  of  the 
food,  and  make  up  the  deficiency  of  flesh- forming  material  from  some 
concentrated  nitrogenous  food,  as  cotton-seed  meal  or  cocoanut  meal. 
In  this  way  the  ration  will  be  complete  and  more  economical  than  if 
no  fruit  were  used. 

To  illustrate:  A  cow  (1,000  pounds  weight)  requires  per  day  about 
25  pounds  of  dry  matter,  containing  2.5  pounds  of  digestible  protein, 


52 

12.5  pounds  of  carbohydrates,  and  .40  pounds  of  fat,  with  a  fuel  value 
of  30,000.  If  we  have  hays,  grain,  and  bran,  a  good  ration  would  be 
12  pounds  of  alfalfa  hay,  13  pounds  of  wheat  hay,  and  5  pounds  of 
bran.  The  5  pounds  of  bran  could  be  replaced  by  15  pounds  of  fresh 
prunes,  and  the  deficiency  in  the  protein  resulting  from  the  substitution 
could  be  made  up  with  1  pound  of  cotton-seed  meal;  or  5  pounds  of 
raisins  could  take  the  place  of  the  prunes,  in  which  case  f  pound  of 
cotton-seed  meal  would  suffice  for  the  needed  amount  of  protein. 
Either  of  the  above  changes  from  the  conventional  ration  would  make 
it  complete  with  respect  to  its  contents  of  digestible  nutrients.  But 
the  objection  might  be  raised,  and  with  just  cause,  that  the  ration 
would  prove  very  laxative.  To  obviate  this,  it  would  probably  be  best 
to  use  a  less  amount  of  fruit  and  mix  it  with  bran  or  middlings,  etc., 
to  prevent  "scouring"  the  animal.  A  little  careful  experimenting  on 
the  part  of  the  feeder  would  soon  settle  the  matter. 

Equivalent  Values  of  the  Fruits,  Grains,  etc. — It  would  be  almost 
impossible  to  compare  the  fruits  and  grains  by  means  of  their  nutri- 
ents, because  the  ratios  of  the  muscle-forming  material  to  the  fattening 
matter  in  the  two  kinds  of  foods  are  so  different.  But  what  can  be  done 
is  to  compute  the  valuation  of  each  on  the  basis  of  1.7  cents  per  pound 
for  protein,  3.31  cents  per  pounds  for  fat,  and  0.75  cents  per  pound 
for  carbohydrate.  These  values  are  an  average  for  those  given  in  the 
Eastern  and  Middle  States,  and  are,  therefore,  for  this  State  only 
approximate,  but  sufficiently  accurate  for  our  purpose.  Table  IX  is 
calculated  from  Tables  V  and  VI,  with  the  aid  of  these  rates.  A 
glance  at  this  table  gives  us,  perhaps,  a  better  idea. of  the  relative 
values  of  the  foods  under  discussion,  than  could  be  obtained  in  any 
other  way. 

TABLE  IX.— Showing  Comparative  Value  of  Fruits,  and  Hay,  Grains,  etc. 


100  Pounds  Fruit  Equivalent  to  Pounds  of 


-Sis 

s  * 

|>  03 

< 

O 

i 

o 
O 

34 

20 

24 

15 

15 

33 

19 

23 

14 

14 

40 

23 

30 

17 

18 

50 

30 

36 

22 

24 

46 

27 

33 

20 

22 

40 

23 

29 

17 

18 

43 

26 

30 

19 

20 

50 

30 

37 

23 

24 

50 

30 

37 

23 

24 

22 

13 

16 

10 

10 

19 

11 

13 

8 

9 

175 

104 

125 

78 

82 

194 

115 

138 

86 

90 

190 

113 

135 

85 

88 

186 

110 

132 

83 

85 

216 

128 

153 

97 

100 

^2 

a 


£a 


PS  C6 

sa 


Fresh  Fruits 

Apples 

Oranges 

Pears 

Plums 

Prunes 

Apricots 

Nectarines 

Figs 

Grapes  

Watermelons  ... 
Nutmeg  melons 

Dried  Fruits 

Dried  prunes 

Dried  apricots  . 
Dried  peaches  . 

Dried  figs 

Raisins 


88 
97 
95 
93 

108 


26       25 

11  |     11 

9  i       9 


84 
93 
91 
89 
103 


18 
17 
20 
26 
24 
20 
23 
27 
27 
12 
10 

92 

102 

100 

97 


16 

13 

15 

12 

19 

15 

24 

20 

22 

18 

19 

15 

21 

17 

25 

20 

25 

20 

11 

8 

9 

7 

84 

67 

93 

74 

91 

72 

89 

71 

103 

82 

11 

14 
13 
11 
12 
14 
14 
6 
5 

48 
53 
51 
50 
59 


13 
12 

15 
20 
IS 
15 
17 
20 
20 
8 
7 


68 
76 
74 

72 
84 


53 

It  is  seen  that  the  least  valuable  of  the  fresh  fruits  mentioned  in 
the  tables  are  the  melons,  100  pounds  being  equal  to  only  6  pounds  of 
cottonseed  meal,  about  10  pounds  of  the  grains,  5  pounds  of  hay, 
and  20  pounds  of  straw. 

Apples  and  oranges  are  practically  equal  in  food  value,  rating 
about  fifty  per  cent,  higher  than  the  melons,  as  is  seen  by  the  figures 
for  the  equivalents  of  100  pounds  of  these  fruits,  viz.,  24  pounds  of 
hay,  16  pounds  of  grains,  13  pounds  of  rice  bran  and  cocoanut  meal, 
and  9  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal. 

A  good  average  of  the  pitted  fresh  fruits  is  represented  by  prunes, 
100  pounds  of  which  are  equal  in  nutriment  to  46  pounds  of  wheat 
straw,  27  pounds  of  alfalfa  hay,  33  pounds  of  oat  hay,  20  pounds  of 
corn,  22  pounds  of  barley,  23  pounds  of  oats  and  wheat  and  its 
products,  18  pounds  of  rice  bran  and  cocoanut  meal,  and  13  pounds 
of  cotton-seed  meal. 

Hence,  if  wheat  bran  costs  $15  per  ton,  fresh  prunes  would  be 
worth  as  a  substitute  $3  per  ton;  likewise,  if  cottonseed  meal  is 
selling  for  $30  per  ton,  the  prune  value  would  be  about  $3.75.  At 
the  market  price  of  oat  hay,  the  figure  for  fresh  prunes  should  be 
nearly  $3  per  ton. 

The  amount  of  nutrition  found  in  grapes  and  fresh  figs  is  identical, 
both  rating  about  equal,  as  fodders,  with  the  pitted  fruits. 

The  dried  fruits,  as  before  stated,  rank  far  above  the  fresh  material 
as  stock  feed.  This  is  amply  proven  by  the  table.  Of  the  dried  fruits 
represented  in  the  table,  raisins  lead  in  food  value;  containing  lj  to 
lj  times  the  nutritive  ingredients  of  alfalfa  and  oat  hays,  respectively; 
100  pounds  of  the  fruit  being  practically  equal  to  the  same  quantity  of 
grain,  but  to  only  82  pounds  and  59  pounds,  respectively,  of  rice, 
bran,  and  cotton-seed  meal. 

Dried  apricots  rank  slightly  lower  than  raisins,  owing  to  the  latter 
containing  less  water.  Apricots,  however,  are  of  equal  value  as  a 
feeding-stuff  with  wheat  bran;  that  is,  the  unsalable,  dried  apricots 
are  worth  to  the  orchardist  about  $15  per  ton  for  feeding  purposes. 

It  may  be  a  difficult  question  at  times  to  decide,  when  prices  are 
extremely  low,  which  would  be  the  better  economy :  To  feed  the  fruit 
to  cattle,  or  to  receive  whatever  small  returns  might  be  offered  for  it 
in  the  market.  In  such  emergencies,  a  short  soliloquy  and  a  little 
arithmetic  will  decide  the  whole  matter. 

When  there  is  no  market  for  the  fruit  there  is  sometimes  nothing 
left  to  be  done  but  to  feed  it  to  stock.  Under  any  circumstances, 
when  stone  fruit  is  used  for  fodder  for  hogs,  it  is  be  feared  that  when 
the  animals  crack  large  quantities  of  pits,  poisoning  may  occur  from 
the  oil  of  bitter  almonds  and  prussic  acid  present  in  the  kernels. 
Precaution  in  this  direction  is  unnecessary  for  stock,  as  they  do  not 
crack  the  pits.  The  stones  or  pits  can  be  used  to  great  advantage  as 
fuel  in  the  economical  management  of  the  farm. 

Feeding  Test. — A  practical  application  of  the  foregoing  was  made 
by  a  feeder  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State.  He  experimented,  with 
a  large  sow,  from  which  a  litter  of  pigs  had  just  been  taken,  by  first 
feeding  her  a  lot  of  dried  figs  and  barley  for  about  a  week,  to  get  her 
accustomed  to  the  fig  diet.  She  then  weighed  260  pounds.  For  9 
days  following  she  was  fed  all  the  dried  fruit  she  would  eat,  consuming 


54 

220  pounds,  or  24.4  pounds  per  day.  Her  weight  had  increased  to 
290  pounds,  showing  a  gain  of  30  pounds  in  nine  days,  or  3^  pounds 
per  day. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  sow  was  in  an  unusually  favorable 
condition  for  a  rapid  increase  in  weight,  having  just  been  depleted  by 
the  litter  of  pigs;  hence  the  above  comparison  is  not  fully  demonstra- 
tive; and  unfortunately  we  have  no  data  for  gain  on  full  grain  ration 
from  the  same  place.  But  from  investigations  made  at  the  Utah  Agri- 
cultural College  (Bulletin  40)  the  increase  in  weight  per  day  of  hogs 
weighing  from  250  to  300  pounds,  on  a  full  grain  ration,  was  about 
lj  pounds.  Hence  we  might  conclude  that  pigs  will  increase  in 
weight  more  rapidly  from  a  ration  of  dried  figs  than  from  one  of 
grains,  etc.  The  gain  in  live  weight  per  day  from  the  amount  of  dried 
figs  consumed  (24.4  pounds)  was  3h  pounds — that  is,  1  pound  gain 
required  7.3  pounds  figs.  This  result  agrees  very  closely  with  the 
figure  7.13,  obtained  at  the  Utah  Station,  for  the  number  of  pounds 
of  grain  necessary  to  produce  1  pound  of  gain  in  pigs  of  the  same 
weight  as  the  one  in  question. 

It  must  be  noted  that,  although  1  pound  gain  requires  the  same 
quantity,  practically,  of  either  the  grain  or  figs,  the  pigs  will  consume 
about  three  times  as  much  of  the  figs  as  they  will  of  grain;  therefore 
the  gain  will  be  correspondingly  more  rapid.  Assuming  the  basis 
above  discussed  to  be  correct,  this  is  a  very  important  point  if  one 
wishes  to  place  his  hogs,  of  a  given  weight,  in  the  market  as  soon  as 
possible. 

The  thirty  pounds  gain  was  due  to  the  220  pounds  of  dried  figs 
consumed.  Hence  at  the  selling  price  of  the  sow,  4j  cents  per  pound 
live  weight,  the  amount  realized  for  the  figs  was  $1.35,  which  is  equal 
to  about  $12.50  per  ton,  a  somewhat  low  figure  for  the  fruit.  But  the 
use  of  it  as  pig-feed  saved  the  purchase  of  grain,  and  at  the  same  time 
added  30  pounds  to  the  weight  of  the  animal  in  less  than  one-half  the 
time  that  would  have  been  necessary  had  grain  been  fed.  The  cost  of 
the  cereal  ration,  based  on  the  ruling  price  of  grain  at  the  time  of  the 
experiment  to  produce  the  same  gain,  would  have  been  about  $2.00, 
which,  at  the  selling  price  mentioned  above,  would  have  entailed  a 
loss. 

From  the  foregoing  data  it  is  seen  that  200  pounds  of  a  grain 
ration  would  be  required  to  produce  the  same  gain  in  weight  as 
resulted  from  the  experiment  with  figs.  This  corresponds  quite  well 
with  Table  IX. 


TABLE     OF    CONTENTS. 


Objects  of  Feeding 1 

Composition  of  Foods:  Green,  Fodder,  Silage,  Roots,  Beet-pulp,  Hay;  Grain 

and  Seeds;  Mill  and  By-products;  Miscellaneous 2 

Tables  of  analyses    4 

Digestibility  of  Foods:  Nutritive  Ratio 6 

Tables:  Digestible  Nutrients  in  various  Foods 8 

Potential  Energy 10 

Comments  on  various  Feed-stuffs  11 

Silage  and  Vegetables :  Roots,  Squashes,  Pie  Melon,  Silage,  Soiling 11 

Alfalfa:  Cost  of  Protein  in  various  Foods:  Tables 13 

Saltbushes:    Hay,    Digestibility,    Feeding:    Mixed  vs.  Unmixed  Foods; 

Utilization  of  Straw;   Silage  and  the  Saltbush 14 

Other  Coarse  Fodders:  Alkali  weed,  Gourd  vines,  Foxtail 16 

Grains   and    By-products:    Plump   and   shrunken  Wheat,  Wheat  Bran, 
Middlings,  Shorts;  Gluten  Feed  and  Gluten  Meal;   Oil-cake  Meals 

(cocoanut,  linseed,  cottonseed) 17 

Sugar-beet  Tops,  Pulp  and  Molasses;  Storing  Beet-pulp 19 

Illustrations  of  the  Beet-pulp  Silo 23 

Feeding  Standards:   Tables 24 

Rations:    Tables   showing    pounds   of  digestible   Nutrients   in   Fodders   and 

Feedstuffs  26 

Feeding  Cows  and  Steers 31 

How  to  use  the  Tables  in  compounding  Rations 31 

Feeding  Alfalfa:   Tables  of  Rations 33 

Feeding  Beet-pulp 34 

Experiments  at  Berkeley  with  small  herd  of  cows 35 

Tables  showing  weekly  record  of  Milk  and  Fat  produced  36 

California  experience  in  feeding  Pulp  to  Beef  Cattle 38 

to  Dairy  Cattle  and  other  Stock;  Additional  comments 40 

List  of  Beet-sugar  Factories  in  California 42 

Calf  Feeding  42 

Horse  Feeding;  Balanced  Rations;  Colt  Feeding 43 

Swine  Feeding;  Tables  of  Rations 44 

Poultry  Feeding ;  Analyses  of  Eggs ;  Rations  for  Hens ;  Wastes  of  the  Hen ; 
Analyses  of  Manure ;  Lime  Supply ;  Necessity  of  variety  in  Foods ; 

Foods  for  growing  Fowls;  W'ater 45 

Food-value  of  Fruits  for  Live  Stock 49 

Tables  showing  composition  of  Fruits;  Comparison  with  Grains 49 

How  to  use  Fruit  in  Feeding ;  Equivalent  Values  of  Fruits  and  Grains ; 

Table  of  Analyses 51 

Feeding  Test 53 


